By Alec Swann
November 6th 2009 @ 3:31am
With Jonny back, it’ll be England in a canter
England's Mathew Tait, left, and Jonny Wilkinson react on the podium after the Rugby World Cup final match between England and South Africa at the Stade de France stadium in Saint Denis, outside Paris, Saturday Oct.20, 2007. South Africa won the match 15-6. AP Photo/Matt Dunham
A supporter of any team should be worried when the coach states that it’s all about the performance and not the result. Apart from ignoring the obvious, that sport is competition and competition is about winning, it sends out all the wrong signals.
For that reason, in the build up to this Saturday’s Test against the Wallabies at Twickenham, it was disturbing to hear Martin Johnson make utterances to that effect.
The type of nonsensical coach-speak that shouldn’t even have a place before pre-season friendlies certainly shouldn’t find the light of day before an international.
It smacks of getting your excuses in before the event itself and Johnson, of all people, should really know better.
The World Cup winning captain of six years ago was given the job of coaching England because of his status as a no-nonsense leader, not as a disciple of modern day PR.
Despite this, and despite the fact that they’ve got no real form to fall back on, England are in with a chance of beating Australia this weekend.
I’ll come clean and admit that my prediction for the Four Nations rugby league encounter between the two nations last week was based purely on the patriotic allegiances, but this is based on a touch more realism.
For starters, Australia have won once in their last seven outings. Yes, it was against the All Blacks and South Africa, but that is still poor for a side who are used to doing a bit better. England have been no great shakes in recent months, but they haven’t been that bad.
Having said that, they haven’t been that good either. A comprehensive defeat of France and a narrow loss to Ireland aside, England under Johnson have been pretty average.
What they will have to do is consider the autumn international series as a fresh start.
Injuries have forced Johnson’s hand to some extent and there is a large streak of inexperience running through the side. That inexperience, and the resulting enthusiasm, could make up for the inadequacies of recent performances.
And most importantly, Jonny Wilkinson is back.
I’m not one to place to much store in the effect of an individual, But England with Wilkinson will be far superior to an England without.
While not the player of 2003, Wilkinson is comfortably England’s best fly-half and for his goal-kicking is worth a place in the team alone. If he is fit and firing, England have every chance.
What they can’t afford is the type of performance they produced in the same fixture 12 months ago.
Australia can go into the game with a more relaxed attitude because the majority of the pressure will be on the hosts and Johnson and if they get ahead early, tension will seep through the England ranks.
It won’t be a free-flowing, open encounter – England can’t play that way – and it will come down to the kicking.
For that reason alone England will win by less than 10 points.
TV TIMES FOR WALLABIES v ENGLAND, 7th November 2009
FOX SPORTS COVERAGE, WALLABIES v ENGLAND
England v Qantas Wallabies at Twickenham
Kickoff Time: 1.30am AEDT (Sunday)
Live Broadcast TIMES:
Fox Sports 1 – 1.20am-3.30am AEDT (Sunday)
Fox Sports HD – 1.20am-3.30am AEDT (Sunday)
Sunday Replays will also be shown at various times on Fox Sports HD, Fox Sports 1 and Fox Sports 2
CHANNEL TEN AND ONE HD COVERAGE, WALLABIES v ENGLAND
Broadcast Times on Ten and One HD for Wallabies v England:
Sydney – 1am-3.30am (Sunday) (Live)
Melbourne – 1am-3.30am (Sunday) (Live)
Brisbane – 12.10am-2.30am (Sunday) (Live)
Perth – 1am-3.30am (Sunday) (Delay)
Adelaide – 1am-3.30am (Sunday) (Delay)
Sunday Replays will also be shown at various times in each capital city on One HD
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
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...
(151)
Mr cheese said | November 6th 2009 @ 3:42am | Report comment
England will win by FEWER than 10 points.
Anyway, Swannie, your prediction before the 13 man egg-chasing was completely rubbish. If the Aussies had really wanted to turn the screw, they could have put 60 points on England last weekend.
By the way, England will win by at least 15 points: Ugo Monye will score two tries.
fred said | November 6th 2009 @ 9:48am | Report comment
fromage and too much wine mon ami;aust backs will kill the poms
John Ryan said | November 6th 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
Is that before or after they succeed in boring everyone to death,I hope the Ref has a good agent because he will be about the most entertaining person on the park.
Matt0931 said | November 6th 2009 @ 3:45am | Report comment
That’s quite the prediction!
Although I think you got it the wrong way around. Wallabies by 15
Now that’s blind patriotism isn’t it!
Knives Out said | November 6th 2009 @ 3:55am | Report comment
Mr Swann, how many England games have you watched over the past year? How many tries did England score during the 6N? How many tries have they scored to date under Johnson? How would you describe the tactics that Brian Smith employs? Surely England lost to Australia last year because they ran the ball too much? If England don’t want to run then why has Johnson selected three wingers in the back three? Why will the team be better with Wilkinson? Why will the pressure be on England when they have so many injuries, such inexperience and have come off their best 6N since 2003?
–
Robbie Deans ignored performance at the expense of winning and look at the season Australia has just had. Warren Gatland did the same last season and Wales bombed. Sir Clive Woodward and Jake White had long-term plans and look what they achieved. Obviously winning is non-negotiable but then professional rugby isn’t as black and white as that. To suggest otherwise is a lazy analysis at best. Winning doesn’t always develop good perfomances, but good performances tend to develop winning performances.
fred said | November 6th 2009 @ 7:44am | Report comment
KNIVES,deans has gone for individual skills in backs to take advantage of england defence in midfield,;all these changes and incumbents have this ability (esp off left foot)deans wouldnt have done this agst nz.
however if eng tackle from 9 to 15 they will have a chance otherwise look for an embarassing scoreline
Knives Out said | November 6th 2009 @ 8:09am | Report comment
Cooper and Ioane are positive changes, Fred. Will anyone care about Deans’ reticence for change if the move comes off? There are still issues but it is a start. Australia need to start throwing the ball about. As an English fan I want an English win, but if they don’t and show improvements like they did in the 6N then I won’t be too dissapointed. I genuinely believe that Australia need the win more than England do at this stage in their development. England has the injury excuse and the fact they’re ranked 7th. That said, I still expect a win.
fred said | November 6th 2009 @ 9:58am | Report comment
KO;deans cant afford a loss to depleted england so giving himself an excuse for failure by selecting the populist approach with the tag of “courageous”.he has tried these “gifted”tactics agst bok with no result but eng combo defence will be found wanting this time and deans will be the genius weve all come to love.
Knives Out said | November 6th 2009 @ 9:56pm | Report comment
Very astute, Fred. But maybe a good win and some dynamism from the backs will signal a new stage in the Australian transition?
Parisien said | November 7th 2009 @ 6:01am | Report comment
so many questions, so little time.
Matt0931 said | November 6th 2009 @ 4:03am | Report comment
‘Winning doesn’t always develop good perfomances, but good performances tend to develop winning performances.’
I like that line! I’m going to use that for now on everytime the wallabies lose.
Knives Out said | November 6th 2009 @ 4:05am | Report comment
But first you’ve got to have the performances. Ouch. Take that Australia!
Matt0931 said | November 6th 2009 @ 4:21am | Report comment
O’h no KO. What have you done? You’re going to have 100 abusive Aussie threads after that comment.
Although, Brisbane (and maybe Sydney) test aside, I tend to agree.
Knives Out said | November 6th 2009 @ 4:25am | Report comment
You can’t fight the facts, and if there’s one bloke that can take a touch of humour it’s your stereotypical laid back Aussie.
Parisien said | November 7th 2009 @ 6:05am | Report comment
But first you’ve got to have the performances. Ouch. Take that England! Fortunately if there’s one bloke that can take a touch of humour it’s your stereotypical uptight Englishman.
Robbo said | November 6th 2009 @ 5:45am | Report comment
Remember what happened the last time Australia played a side that wasn’t ranked in the top 2 in the world? As I recall we destroyed the French. The same will happen this weekend.
Australia by 10+ over England
It’s just a warm up for the real “match” in Dublin the following week. Just like Scotland is a warm up for the real match in Cardiff.
Knives Out said | November 6th 2009 @ 7:06am | Report comment
Yes, you … ‘destroyed’ a 2nd string French side who had played nearly a 48 week season and who had just finished a 2 match series with NZ, having actually won in NZ – something that Australia can’t do. Bully for you, Robbo. What a hoot.
CraigB said | November 6th 2009 @ 7:13am | Report comment
we prefer to beat NZ during world cups. Its more fun.
Knives Out said | November 6th 2009 @ 7:23am | Report comment
Whatever helps you sleep at night, boss.
Robbo said | November 6th 2009 @ 7:29am | Report comment
KO – yet another of your irrational defenses of Northern Hemisphere rugby. It seems every time a NH team loses it is because they are “second string”.
I suppose the French and English sides Australia beat (smashed) last November were also second string?
It’s not the Wallabies fault that the French selectors consistently chose bad sides.
Knives Out said | November 6th 2009 @ 7:32am | Report comment
Or more accurately yet another irrational defence of Australian rugby. The Australian victory over France was utterly meaningless and yet you use it to somehow create a bulwark against a truly embarassing season.
If you think that Australia smashed England and France last season then you have no credibility. I suggest you research your history.
The French selectors aka the DoR chose a defensive team to maintain damage limitation. Check out the NZ sides and then check out the xv that played Australia. No comparison whatsoever.
Mr cheese said | November 6th 2009 @ 8:08am | Report comment
Knives, Dear Boy.
Doesn’t that excuse the French ? The Aussies can only play what’s there, and they gave the French a bit of a kicking as I recall.
During the last 6 Nations, the French were absolute garbage at Twickenham. It doesn’t seem to make sense to say that Australia only beat France because of a long French season. The French play well one week and then really badly the next. It’s in their DNA.
You can’t attack the Australians for that.
Knives Out said | November 6th 2009 @ 9:58pm | Report comment
I’m not attacking the Australians for that, Mr cheese. I’m simply pointing out that the victory was nothing to crow about, as none of these end of season thrashings ever are. The difference between the the Australian victory and the English victory is a) a few months and b) a difference in selection (i.e. the best team and just A team).
reds fan said | November 6th 2009 @ 10:08pm | Report comment
So KO will you apply the same “end of season” logic to the AB’s, Wallabies and Boks?
CraigB said | November 6th 2009 @ 8:14am | Report comment
Whatever helps you sleep at night, boss.
Knives Out said | November 6th 2009 @ 8:24am | Report comment
I’m an idiot, Craig. I’ve just had a real think on things and I’ve come to this conclusion: Australia did in fact smash England and France last year, and they also smashed France once more this season. That is why they won the 3N, are ranked 1st in the IRB rankings, scored 8 tries per game and whitewashed the Kiwis 4-0 in the Bledisloe. Go Green and Gold! You complete me!
Parisien said | November 7th 2009 @ 6:07am | Report comment
Oh dear, here we go again. Does he ever stop?
Hermin said | November 8th 2009 @ 5:43am | Report comment
Glad to see others pointing out what I have said all along. However it’s no coincidence that you are all subjected to the same rhetoric and sarcasm that is KO.Watch out lads you’ll be accussed of being Hemjay next.
jus de couchon said | November 6th 2009 @ 6:38am | Report comment
Twickers will expose the Convicts for their lack of depth if they loose any players. Sir Johnny will supply le coup de grace .
Knives Out said | November 6th 2009 @ 7:33am | Report comment
24 players?
Sambobly said | November 6th 2009 @ 6:50am | Report comment
Australia by 60+. Now take THAT for a prediction!
Vented Relief said | November 6th 2009 @ 7:36am | Report comment
Keep dreaming Swanny. Australia by 12.
Gladfoppery said | November 6th 2009 @ 7:45am | Report comment
Alec – England by less than 10 points? So your most optimistic forecast is England by nine, and your most pessimistic is England by one. And you say England in a canter. Again pessimistic because England’s back three can all gallop.
Nobody’s talked about the ref yet. It’s a SH ref, Bryce Lawrence. So does that automatically give the Ws an advantage as to interpretation of the laws? When they beat England at Twickers last year the ref wasn’t happy with the way England were playing and Giteau kicked a bunch of penalties – each team scored just one try if memory serves. But what happens if BL doesn’t like the way the Ws are playing? Then Wilko steps up and kicks a bunch of penalties.
If I were a betting man, I’d look at each team’s record, then put my money on Lawrence.
Colin N said | November 6th 2009 @ 7:50am | Report comment
“And you say England in a canter”
The title is apparently decided by someone else, not the writer of the article.
Bay35Pablo said | November 6th 2009 @ 7:57am | Report comment
With the new faces in the English back line I suspect the Wallabies will be wary. They can’t do the usual analysis of the players, and pick which blade of grass they’ll step on when playing. They might actually have to play what’s in front of them!!!!
Wallabies to win, but Johnny’s boot will keep them in the game.
Brett McKay said | November 6th 2009 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Pablo, by the same token, I don’t know how much intel England would have on a centre pairing of Cooper and Ioane. Unpredicatablity abounds on both sides – hopefully a cracking game ensures…
johnno42 said | November 6th 2009 @ 8:13am | Report comment
colin N i was a bit confused by the title too… never mind i think oz will win this one. What really gets me upset is the reference to FRIENDLIES… its a test match ffs. friendlies don’t exist in rugby union and i think this is a softc*ck NH attempt to pansy up the game and soften the effect of the result.
made me stick my fingers down my throat.
Tim said | November 6th 2009 @ 8:41am | Report comment
Wilkinson is an unbelievable player made even better in 2003 (and 2007) by a strong forward pack. I know nothing of the forward pack named for Saturday, are they going to give him that same platform?
Terry Kidd said | November 6th 2009 @ 8:55am | Report comment
KO and I already have a friendly wager on this outcome …. I said Wallabies by 9, KO said England by 8.
I honestly believe that the Wallabies should win by far more than 9 but I suspect that some inept play, dumb play and wrong options will see opportunities squandered.
As others have said I expect JW to keep England loosely in touch via his goal kicking but I also expect to see a dominant Wallaby pack in all set pieces and (if Giteau gives them ball) I expect to see quite a bit of sleight of hand and power running from Cooper and Ione …. the English centre pairing will have a torrid time of it.
I’m also expecting to see Palu and Elsom consistently carrying the ball beyond the advantage line. God help the English pack when TPN comes on late to replace Moore.
Knives Out said | November 6th 2009 @ 9:51am | Report comment
Erm.. I just gave different odds to stillmissit. My bad. I’ll stick with England by 8 and cop the abuse.
Anyway, here is my take on things: The scrum to be hit and miss until Bell comes on and dominates. The lineout to be solid – Croft is an exceptional jumper. Wilkinson to kick well and Hipkiss to gain a lot of ground. Moody to be everywhere and the back three to look exciting with ball in hand but to make a few mistakes.
Parisien said | November 7th 2009 @ 6:09am | Report comment
Thats a reasonable statement.
Vented Relief said | November 6th 2009 @ 10:01am | Report comment
I hope their work on the lineout this week pays off. Might be the one set piece they lose ground on otherwise.
Parisien said | November 6th 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
“The Australian victory over France was utterly meaningless”… ah yes, for whom?
“Check out the NZ sides and then check out the xv that played Australia. No comparison whatsoever.” Wrong.
Mr Knives Out, give it up! You sound like a broken record!
The side was picked to beat Australia. Hindsight, that marvellous thing shows us that Lievremont got his tactics wrong, the French didn’t play very well, while the Wallabies did.
I’ve concluded that due to your pitbull -like ability in refusing to release hold on a subject and to reiterate what you probably believe to be true but is in fact not, that you are either a journalist, or a politician. Or simply too idle and mischievous with nothing better to do! Maybe you get pleasure out of being an English crusader on an Australian rugby blog and stirring the pot?
Once again , I admire your tenacity in talking up all Wallaby losses, talking down their victories, and doing the exact opposite with English rugby results. To borrow one of your phrases, “remove that chip from your shoulder”!
I sincerely hope you forget your prejudices and enjoy the rugby this weekend.
Knives Out said | November 6th 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Yeah, I sound like a broken record because I just released an article entitled ‘Why the Australian victory over a tired and bored France side is meaningless’ or because I responded to a patently ludicorus assertion? Which one is it?
I think you need to get clarity, my man. Refresh yourself with our initial discussion weeks ago. The facts haven’t changed. However, if you think the Wallabies played very well in that game then I have nothing further to say. Your credibility is redundant.
I sincerely hope that Australia scores a try this weekend.
Parisien said | November 6th 2009 @ 7:40pm | Report comment
Indeed the facts have not changed. You were always wrong. I never said the Wallabies played very well against France, but played better, and I refuted your assertion that the French lineup was a “ridiculous”. Go back and look at the team sheet, and the match.
Your ability to distort the truth destroyed your credibility a long time.
Knives Out said | November 6th 2009 @ 10:02pm | Report comment
You are talking nonsense and attempting to be controversial without any sustainable platform. The team sheets are there to see. History does not lie. Go and find another fight to pick, Rumplestiltskin. That the Australians played better than the French is irrelevant.
Parisien said | November 7th 2009 @ 3:23am | Report comment
Rumplestiltskin? Cute but out of place. I know you are very young but save the name calling for others.
History does not lie, indeed! The proof:
The French team against Australia was -
Traille, Medard, Fritz, Mermoz, Heymans,Beauxis, Yachvili, Barcella, Szarzewski, Marconnet, Pape, Millo-Chlusky, Dusautoir, Ouedrago, Puricelli. Replacements include Mas, Dupuy, Martin and Vincent Clerc.
A very good team with lots of talent and experience, hardly “ridiculous” as you constantly assert.
I think you are the one talking nonsense and attempting to be controversial. You seem to have problems giving credit where due, in this case to the Wallabies for their win over France.
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 12:32am | Report comment
1. I openly backed the Australian team to win the 3N. Were I anti-Australian or narrow minded then I would not have done that, nor would have I done it so publicly.
2. End of season victories over the NH teams mean nothing. The 3N is allegedly the biggest and best tournament in world rugby so in contrast what is the value of playing sides like a 3rd string Italian side and a 2nd string French side who have just come off a 45+ week season? What value does that game have? What credit is due for winning games like that?
3. Rugby union fans know that the spine of the team drives the team. Please explain to me why having drawn a series in NZ and maintained the same side for two tests in a row why France decided to completely remove Servat, Picamoles, Dupuy, Trinh-Duc, Traille and Medard? Why did Lievremont pick a team to kick when a) France has superior running backs to Australia b) Australia plays a kicking game and c) the game was being played on dry, hard turf? Do you think that Lievremont thought France would kick their way to victory or do you think that the majority of the French players were physically drained and therefore the coach took the option of damage limitation?
4. Where do I constantly assert that the France team was ridiculous?
Hermin said | November 8th 2009 @ 5:52am | Report comment
Oh the great saint, once again shows his true colours. Nothing but a provoctor who when challenged gets personal and no doubt will have the Audacity to turn this around to paint himself out to be the shining light. Funny that KO you are really starting to come apart at the seams and in this thread alone many posters have challenged you, you have replied in exactly the same aggresive and sarcastic manner.
Time to take a reality check and breathe
sittingbison said | November 8th 2009 @ 11:51pm | Report comment
got two KO, poms got none
Jecker said | November 6th 2009 @ 9:28am | Report comment
To take a look at a video of Stuart Barnes doing a whiteboard analysis of Ws V England Google London Times Sports. He also does one on the same page for the ABs V Wales. Interesting stuff.
Parisien said | November 6th 2009 @ 9:31am | Report comment
Here’s a knife- like cutting prediction:
if England win, it will be because of their brilliant and immensely talented back play as coached by Brian Smith and proven by the huge amount of tries they scored last six Nations.
If they lose, it will be because of injuries, the referee, the boring but effective Wallaby kicking game, illegal binding in the scrum by Robinson, and illegal tries and offside play by the Wallabies in a match that really didn’t mean anything anyway.
Knives Out said | November 6th 2009 @ 9:55am | Report comment
I don’t thinkt that Robinson has ever been accused of being an illegal scrummager, however the Wallabies have often been accused of a boring (but not particularly effective kicking game). Nearly there, champ.
Parisien said | November 6th 2009 @ 7:46pm | Report comment
Oh the irony! England is the team that always plays boring kick filled rugby, despite your claims to the contrary. Oh, so they scored a couple of tries last 6N? Brilliant. Most impartial observers note they had yet another very ordinary season. Ah, they beat the French? Well as you like to point out, that doesn’t count for anything.
Keep it up champ, and enjoy your sausage and Guiness for breakfast.
Knives Out said | November 6th 2009 @ 10:11pm | Report comment
Now I’m not the greatest mathmagician but – and I may be wrong here – there is a little bit of difference between the French 1st xv playing a match in February and the French 2nd xv playing a match in June or July. I can’t quite work out what that difference is, but there surely is one.
‘Most impartial observers’? That’s a good one. I wonder who this body of rugby intellects are? England had their best 6N since 2003 and a nascent team progressed with each game. Nobody is saying they are anywhere near the finished article but they showed a willingness to use the ball, in fact their main tactics was/is the counter attack. Combine that with a growing organisation (Ireland and Wales both said that England were their toughest opponents) and a broader picture develops. I can only assume that your juvenile attitude is galvanised by jealousy of having to watch such a boring rugby team (that is based upon the presumption that you are Australian) that has been steadfastly conservative since 1999.
Btw. When has England always played boring kick-filled rugby? Not under Ashton, not under Woodward, not under Rowell. Do you mean under Cooke?
Parisien said | November 7th 2009 @ 4:06am | Report comment
French 2nd XV? You are wrong , check the names I list above.
About England’s ordinary season and impartial observers: try international rugby media including The Times, The Independent, Le Midi Olympique, l’Equipe, and too many rugby internet sites to list here, as well as non-English rugby fans around the world! Less impartial – even Rob Andrew, Martin Johnson themselves described most of England’s last two years as ordinary.
Even England’s best season since 2003 (and I agree with you about that) isn’t saying much, England have been woeful until last year and no other RWC champion team descended so far so fast. Yes they show signs of improvement. And good for them.
Juvenile attitude? What? Thats both cheeky and ironic coming from you! You love calling people names, see your threads above. If thats not juvenile…
An Australian team steadfastly conservative since 1999? In some games yes, in others no, like most teams.
Thats right, you believe that the tradition of Australian running rugby is a myth began in 1984. Well, you had only just been born so we can’t hold it against you for not knowing more. It goes back much further and its based on real rugby history, acknowledged by all except hardened English fans like yourself with an axe to grind.
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 12:37am | Report comment
‘About England’s ordinary season and impartial observers: try international rugby media including The Times, The Independent, Le Midi Olympique, l’Equipe, and too many rugby internet sites to list here, as well as non-English rugby fans around the world! Less impartial – even Rob Andrew, Martin Johnson themselves described most of England’s last two years as ordinary.’
The last two years? What has Johnson to do with the last two years? When have I mentioned the last two years? The cynic in me would suggest that people who list the names of publications (whic,h btw, is a woefully nascent list – there are more than two papers in the UK media) are people who need the legitimisation of specific ‘pundits’ as opposed to being able to offer anything of note themselves.
‘An Australian team steadfastly conservative since 1999? In some games yes, in others no, like most teams.
Thats right, you believe that the tradition of Australian running rugby is a myth began in 1984. Well, you had only just been born so we can’t hold it against you for not knowing more. It goes back much further and its based on real rugby history, acknowledged by all except hardened English fans like yourself with an axe to grind.’
Acknowledged by all except hardened English fans … and most people on The Roar. What an utterly juvenile statement.
bob said | November 6th 2009 @ 9:39am | Report comment
Parisien, a very accurate prediction of the two possible outcomes. Well done. Honest and to the point. Many a true word spoken in jest… and all that!
jus de couchon said | November 6th 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
I would compare Australias rugby team with the Jocks . I.E. over acheivers given their limited resources and relative over acheivement considering the lack of and paucity[I like that word] of world class players. R.U is a minnor sport in Australia , behind League , Wendy ball and Aerial Ping Pong . Therefore I see no reason why these 4th rate egg chasers should be allowed to muddy the great traditions we have built here in Twickers.. Botany Bay was there for a reason !!
Parisien said | November 7th 2009 @ 6:17am | Report comment
What exactly is “jus de couchon”? Perhaps you mean “jus de cochon ” – pig juice? It appears more apt.
Shocks said | November 6th 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
At the end of the day the out come will be decided by each forward pack if the Wallabies can hold their own and recycle their own ball quickly enough it will be the Wallabies by at least 14 points. If the English pack can find some cohesion with all the new caps and disrupt the Wallabies enough at the break-down it will be a dower display of kicking superiority by Johnny with England winning by less than 7.
Honeybadger said | November 6th 2009 @ 9:57am | Report comment
Dear Knives Out,
The nothern hemisphere rugby teams will turn out to be spectators in NZ in 2011-The true champs will be NZ with The Wallabies second, South Africa 3rd. Even though I hate to admit it, the Kiwis will be absolutely pumped and be undefeated ast home. Robbie’s done the best thing yet in his unusual Wallabies coaching reign which is choosing 2 Reds in the centres (in fact there are 9 current or former Reds players.
England girls will falter badly, even at Twickenham, with Aust. at 1.55 to win-What a great way to make easy money.
Knives Out said | November 6th 2009 @ 10:14pm | Report comment
Good for you. I hope you make your fortune. A word of warning regarding the 2011 WC, however, 1987, 1991, 1999, 2003 and 2007 all had one thing in common – a NH finalist.
sittingbison said | November 8th 2009 @ 11:59pm | Report comment
and of thes 5 games….one winner?
Terry Kidd said | November 6th 2009 @ 9:59am | Report comment
I have to admit, that having just seen the stats on Banahan I really, really hope that Mitchell will not be marking him ….. it nearly makes me wish that Lote or Wendell were back to stand the wing against him ….. whatever they were not for Australian rugby they were/are able to make a tackle.
Knives Out said | November 6th 2009 @ 10:02am | Report comment
He’s slow. Don’t worry. He used to be a lock.
Honeybadger said | November 6th 2009 @ 10:22am | Report comment
I think” Knives Out” needs to get a life rather than pumping England with multiple comments on this site-haven’t you a job to do or something???
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 12:38am | Report comment
I think you need to get some manners and note that I have only commented on a few articles. Would you like to talk employment and qualifications with me?
ilikedahoodoogurusingha said | November 6th 2009 @ 10:26am | Report comment
I’m not sure I ever saw Wendell make a tackle……….he was more like a turnstile. Mind you Mitchell is in about the same class. LOL
MyGeneration said | November 6th 2009 @ 10:28am | Report comment
Wendell is and was a great front-on tackler. It’s lateral movement he has a problem with.
Hendo said | November 6th 2009 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
They were not tackles – that was the Big Soy Del unable to get out the way in time… For such a big boy – he was extremely light on in defence.
MyGeneration said | November 6th 2009 @ 4:20pm | Report comment
I’ve seen people go around him. I don’t recall anyone going through him.
Terry Kidd said | November 6th 2009 @ 10:07am | Report comment
Lol … so are both Lote and Wendell, but Mitchell tackles like my grandmother and I dread seeing the ball run at him by anyone. If he is on his pat malone then its a missed tackle statistic, if he has help then he is always the assist, never the main man.
Republican said | November 6th 2009 @ 11:58am | Report comment
It will be England in a canter with or without Johnny however most Ozzies are more interested in how the Kangaroos will fare I believe.
They are sure to struggle v France and get their nether regions well and truely kicked by NZ in the final.
I reckon we should simply focus on Swimming and Surfing for international cred as our respective rugby pedigrees are very ordinary these days and our Cricket is not far behind.
Cheers
Parisien said | November 7th 2009 @ 6:20am | Report comment
Republican – are you sure you are not a monarchist?
sittingbison said | November 9th 2009 @ 12:06am | Report comment
wrong on both count R
Working Class Rugger said | November 6th 2009 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
Republican
Look out your prejudice is showing again. Why do you bother? Do yourself and everyone else a favour and crawl back to your hovel. The Wallabies are the better team in their encounter and you’re playing with yourself if you think the Kangaroo won’t give the French a hiding in the RL.
Republican said | November 6th 2009 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
Thanks for the heads up WCR, a gentleman and a scholar as always.
JimC said | November 6th 2009 @ 5:04pm | Report comment
It could actually be a decent game. England have picked players in form like Geragthy, Wilkinson. And surely Deans didn’t pick Cooper and Ioane to be a target for the forwards. The ball to see some air I think.
Photon said | November 6th 2009 @ 6:56pm | Report comment
Oh it’s tough being a Saffa on this thread, was actually kind of hoping the Pommies win caus the Spiro and the Shackledraggers have been such gracious losers (NOT) this year and I generally like seeing the Wallabies lose, But then I hear Knives and I become conflicted, I wish there was a way they could both lose. But I’ve concluded that it’s been so much fun listening to shattered Shackledraggers, dream up excuses for the Wobblies that I never want it to end. So I’m picking England by 4.
johnno42 said | November 6th 2009 @ 10:04pm | Report comment
KO, yeah crank ya self right up there, ol c*ck… it’ll just be further to fall come sunday
Knives Out said | November 6th 2009 @ 10:19pm | Report comment
‘So KO will you apply the same “end of season” logic to the AB’s, Wallabies and Boks?’
No, and neither should it even be considered. We’re talking about players who have played around 20 games this season, coming into a tour with months of being camp under their belt against sides with hardly any time in camp (by comparison) and no warm up games. Logically none of the SH sides should lose to any of the sides who are below them, which is all of the NH sides.
pothale said | November 7th 2009 @ 3:03am | Report comment
Hear, hear. From one end of the year to the other, it’s all about the superior, more skilled SH sides, etc, etc compared to the lowly plodding NH teams. Now that we’re at a crunch point, we’re suddenly getting ‘Australia isn’t talking about grand slams, it’s one game at a time, England is the most important game of the tour, weakened Aussie side, etc, etc.’
SA and NZ should be expecting a clean sweep of the boards and are making those kind of noises. Australia needs to front up. Much the same way that Ireland and Wales have been trumpeted as the leading NH lights for the Aussie tour, and that Ireland should be setting a clean sweep as their minimum target. Although, France shouldn’t be forgotten about either.
Anyway, roll on the weekend – I’ve put my money where my heart is and backed singles and a NH double for Saturday. Hopefully, I’ll be buying some of the rounds come Saturday night.
And a little glimpse of South Africa tonight at Welford Road to set things going. Lote Tuquiri is likely to get a run out as well – should be interesting to see how he goes.
Justin said | November 7th 2009 @ 8:49am | Report comment
Here we go again. The old SH has only played 20 matches (much more like 30 or more at higher intensity) v NH who have played, what is is 50? KO will produce Lionel someone who seemingly played every weekend bar Xmas
KO as a former footballer you would also realise that while the SH does not play as many matches per year that many times the toughest sessions are those on the training paddock. They can easily be more physically draining than a normal match.
Lets not forget many of the players/combinations for the NH teams play in the same club/province so its not like the players are as foreign to each other as is sometimes made out with a limited preparation.
So yes, the SH are “fresher” but they are essentially at the end of their season while the NH teams should be hitting their peak with the season only 6-8 weeks old. The NH teams are at home so crowds will be 90% on their side also (refs always influenced to a degree to the home side).
Logically you are right – the SH teams should win but if sport were down to logic there wouldnt be much point in playing at all, we would just sum up the sides and say “yep NZ win” thanks very much. Next…
Cant wait, both matches should be intriguing affairs, I think we may see some fluent rugby for a change (fingers crossed).
pothale said | November 7th 2009 @ 9:08am | Report comment
I’d argue the peak for Northern teams is post Christmas – now if we could get rid of that old 6 Nations thing and the Super 59, and play the tests then, it would be much better.
I presume some SH players play in the S14, play in the Summer tests, play in the 3N and then in the Spring Tours. Some of the Boks also play in the Currie Cup – not sure about NZ players.
So that’s 26 plus 2 playoffs plus 2-3 tests plus 6 tests for Aus and NZ and another 3-4 ga mes for the Boks. So about 38-41 games for an SH player.
In Europe, you’ve got 14, 12 and 10 leagues. That’s 26, 22 and 18 games. Plus 5 X 6N games, plus 6 pool games and 3 playoff in the H Cup plus 3 AI tests and 2-3 Summer tests. 38- 46 games for NH.
Not much difference really, except for those counties with smaller squads and therefore more players have to play more games.
The province combinations argument is true for Welsh and Irish, though less for the Irish this season. Not true for England this season. Toulouse supply a good chunk to the test squad, but still have a fair mix – no more than their SH counterparts e.g. Bulls.
I’m not applying logic in saying SH will win – more I’m applying what is regularly said week in, week in, and based on previous results that SH teams are the best in the world.
And by end of November that may well still be true.
Hopefully not though.
Justin said | November 7th 2009 @ 10:01am | Report comment
Pot – S14 is only one round not two.
I certainly dont contend the SH players play near as many matches as their NH counterparts, but some suggest the gap is so much wider than it actually is.
Whahts your reasoning behind peaking post Xmas? I would have thought by that stage fatigue and injury may be emerging for some???
Hey and dont get me started about changing fixture dates! Personally I think the NH should play their rugby in the summer!
pothale said | November 7th 2009 @ 10:41am | Report comment
Well peaking occurs both for the individual and that individual as part of a regular team, as I see it. So for example, the Lions players only got back with their provinces about two games ago in the league, and got two H CUp matches under their belts. Their rustiness showed. Then they depart from their clubs and converge as a test team. In Ireland’s case, Kideny has two weeks to get them in shape – somestill carrying injuries -e.g. Horna, Flannery, Kearney, etc – and they play three tests.
Then they split again and start playing league and H Cup. Two back to back matches in the H Cup and 3-4 in the league. By end of December, they’re humming nicely. Hence my contention that they peak in the new year. They play 2-3 games in the league, get the final round of H Cup pool done, and then split for the 6 Nations.
So they may be fresh for the Autumn Internationals, but they ain’t coherent, and they haven’t peaked – in my view. But I ain’t an expert.
Justin said | November 7th 2009 @ 11:02am | Report comment
All good points…
pothale said | November 7th 2009 @ 11:05am | Report comment
Actually I left out of my list above for NH the Anglo-Welsh cup though it tends to field second-stringers but not completely for the Welsh sides, and the European Challenge Cup which caters for sides not in the H Cup. And there’s another 1 playoff games for the four teams who top each of the leagues and the playoff final.
Too many games in reality – partiularly for the English Premiership clubs and the French Top 14. It’s part of the reason why French clubs have been less than committed to the H Cup. The national league is of much greater importance – unfortunately. However, Toulouse and Stade are looking good this year.
Justin said | November 7th 2009 @ 11:15am | Report comment
Dont know why they bother with things like the EDF? To me you have your domestic comp and the HC period.
pothale said | November 7th 2009 @ 11:42am | Report comment
Well – it may well be that the AWC will bite the dust at some stage, but don’t hold your breath.
When the Italians join up with the Magners either next season or the following one, then the Magners expands to 12. More games for the existing Celtic nations, whose core players will likely play throughout the season in both league and H Cup and the Tests. There has been talk of changing the qualification process for Magners into the H Cup. Rather than guaranteed spots for top three provinces in Ireland and Wales and two in Scotland, it would become like English and French and the Top 6 or 8 would qualify regardless of country.
Scotland initially looked at this proposal nervously since their regions were inhabiting the bottom places in the Magners. But Edignburgh and Glasgow have improved substantially (Edinburgh finished second in the last season) and they’re more open to the idea, but would want Wales to reduce/kill off their participation in the EDF or LV Cup as it’s now known. (The Welsh were originally expenlled from the Celtic League when they agreed to join the Anglo-Welsh Cup because of clashes with Celtic League matches on same weekends.)
However, LV have just signed up as two-year sponsors of the AWC and have an option for a further two. The winner of the Cup – if an English club – gets a spot in the H Cup the following season, so it’s now more attractive than ever.
So whatever about the Welsh participation, it won’t be dropped in the bin just yet. For the first time since the comp got underway in 1972, Welsh clubs have won the comp for the last two years running.
And if all that wasn’t enough, did I mention that the British & Irish Cup is also due to start this week? It’s a second-rank comp that plays across the Autumn Internationals and the 6N matches.
Who said the the game is in decline? Over-saturation may be the biggest problem yet.
Knives Out said | November 6th 2009 @ 10:23pm | Report comment
Btw.. to all Australian fans – I may not be able to get access to a computer over the weekend so I wish you all the best of luck and hope the best team wins. Good game all.
Parisien said | November 7th 2009 @ 4:49am | Report comment
no access to a computer? that would be a first. but thanks for the best wishes nevertheless. I’m sure we ‘ll hear back from you soon.
johnno42 said | November 6th 2009 @ 10:29pm | Report comment
KO thats mighty white of ya bro… an th same to you… catch ya when you get back.
Parisien said | November 7th 2009 @ 4:52am | Report comment
You’ve already caught him Johnno, didn’t you know he’s a computer virus?
johnno42 said | November 7th 2009 @ 1:54am | Report comment
amen photon
Pothale said | November 7th 2009 @ 6:00am | Report comment
Well well. Leicester are putting it up to South Africa. Good match to watch and despite the rain plenty of running rugby from both sides. The latest resulting in a lovely try for Leicester from amarasino to take them into the lead with the conversion on the half hour mark. 10-8 to the Tigers.
Pothale said | November 7th 2009 @ 6:03am | Report comment
Make that 13-8 as the Tigers slot a penalty over from practically the half-way line.
Pothale said | November 7th 2009 @ 6:13am | Report comment
The Boks pour the pressure on but Leicester fighting well particularly in scrum. Castrogiovanni is mincemeating the Bok front row. A scrum to SA in the Tigers is mashed, lost ball and SA are back in their own half. Pressure comes on at the breakdown and a penalty to Tigers as the Boks trangress. 40 metres out and Ben Youngs slots it coolly between the sticks with a minute to go to half time. Cockerill & Co are rubbing their eyes at the scoreboard. But a penalty back to the Boks on the stroke of half-time leaves it at 16-11 at the break. Game on!
Pothale said | November 7th 2009 @ 6:38am | Report comment
Castrogiovanni continues to mash the Boks in the second half. After some back n forth Boks win a penalty just inside their own half. Van der Merwe comes into the front row. Piennar kicks it out on the full behind the goal line. Scrum back to Tigers. The Bok scrum reverses at pace and concede a penalty. Youngs slots it again and it’s 19-11.
Back come the Boks and they’re camped in the Tigers 22. Maul from a lineout and Tigers turn the pressure. Danni Roussow loses the head and tries to head-butt Castro. Ref confers and penalty to Tigers. The kick is caught and Johnson makes a great run back and his grubber puts a lineout inside the Tigers 22.
Pothale said | November 7th 2009 @ 6:45am | Report comment
Another penalty to Tigers but luckily for SA Youngs misses wildly. Tuquiri comes on to great applause. Could the unthinkable happen? 55 on the clock.
Pothale said | November 7th 2009 @ 7:00am | Report comment
Another scrum and the Boks are Castroed once again. Superb stuff as SA concede another penalty. 45 metres out and Youngs steps up. 22-11 to the Tigers. 20 mins to go.
Piennar finally gets the hook and Hargreaves comes on. Boks are going nowhere at the moment.
Hougaard makes a break. Penalty to Boks and they quick tap as Hougaard takes it up again. Pressure from Boks and brilliant defence tackling from Tigers. Ball goes out wide and the Boks fumble and lose possession. Relieving kick from Tigers. Back they come and at the breakdown Hemingway transgressed and penalty to Boks. Tigers have been warned by ref that next time it’s a yellow. My error – Piennar did not go off. He takes the kick and gets it. 22-14 now as Castro is replaced.
Tigers attack and they’re in the Bojks 22. Slow ball though. Looking for the drop. Tuquiri waiting on left wing. They move but it breaksdown. Out it comes to Tuquiri and he breaks forward before being tackled on 22. Out it comes again and the Tigers take it up slowly. Ball fires out and Mauger attempts a cross but it’s caught.
Pothale said | November 7th 2009 @ 7:08am | Report comment
Boks keep the pressure up and win a penalty in 75th minute in front of posts. Piennar and Chuter attempts to crazily run it out. They scramble on touchline but avoid conceeding. Another penalty and it’s now 22-17. 3 mins to go.
Pothale said | November 7th 2009 @ 7:14am | Report comment
Last minute. Lineout to Boks in the Tigers 22. Mad scramble. Boks keep coming. Tigers defend furiously. Numerous phases. Time is up. They play on. Inch by inch forward by Boks. Another pick n drive. Tigers resist. 3 mins gone over. Boks throw, fumble, knock on and it’s in touch. Whistle goes and the Tigers take a fantastic victory over the Wirld Champions.
Colin N said | November 7th 2009 @ 7:20am | Report comment
With a third string side as well. Congratulations Leicester.
Lee said | November 7th 2009 @ 7:30am | Report comment
Well played to the Tigers, thorughly out played the Boks – and I am a Bok supporter.
Can’t believe the Boks performance though pure crap really. The only player who actually looked like he was trying to stake a claim for a 1st team Bok jersey was Ashley Johnson, everyone else seemed to think it would be a walk over. I am not so much annoyed at the loss as to how the Boks lost – did they really believe that upmteen pick and goes would do anything – just no creativity. Pienaar is not an international quality kicker and possibly not even an international first five.
I don’t know what it is with Dickinson but the Boks really can’t deal with him reffing – I am not saying he was in anyway crap today, just that when he refs we don’t adjust much to his interpretation and seems to get annoyed with him, whihc shows on the pitch.
Colin N said | November 7th 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
Yeah, I was impressed with Johnson. Although he’s obviously very powerful, he seemed to have plenty of variety in his game.
On the Scummaging issue, which is a huge one, surely there are better props in South Africa than Steenkamp and Jannie Du Plessis? They’re also basically second choice to the ‘Beast’ and Smit, and neither of those are that greater scrummagers either.
Lee said | November 7th 2009 @ 8:59am | Report comment
There are but for some reason the coaching panel seem to think ther eois no difference between a tighthead and a loosehead prop, and refuse to listen to advice. Wian Du Preez is a good prop(just signed a 2 month deal with Munster) and Wikus Blaauw has also been doing well. It seems that DiV wants to maintain consistency by picking Jannie and Steenkamp.
Interesting that whne Bimarck goes off and Chilliboy comes on the Bok scrum struggled more, and then today when Chilliboy comes off and Bandise comes in it goes worse again. I think Bandise will be good but he needs to actually play some Super 14 and for a pro team as a 1st choice player.
They need Os Du Randt to help with scrums, as they have been an issue all year(on the whole).
van der Merwe said | November 7th 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
The result is hardly surprising, to me at least. When a team like that is selected, it more often than not gets what it deserves. Leaving aside all the obligatory protests about the token players, I hope de Villiers took note of his boy Pienaar. You know that when Earl Rose’s performance excels yours that you are bad.
Lee said | November 7th 2009 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
To be honet Earl did nothing that I can remmeber wrong – a deft kick through for a try and some nice stepping for a break. I finally saw some glimpses of what DeV might see in him.
Parisien said | November 7th 2009 @ 7:57am | Report comment
Pothale, that was brilliant match calling. Well done to you (and Leicester)!
Shahsan said | November 7th 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment
When Lote “unlucky charm” Tuqiri came on for the excellent Argentine winger with Leicester leading, I thought the Tigers were going to lose a game they had all but won.
True enough, Tuqiri as usual ran poor lines, kicked teh ball away midnlessly and looked out of sync with his teammates (understandable I know as he has only just joined, but I doubt he will get better). Suddenly Leicester were holding on precariously when they had looked comfortable before he joined the fray.
I hope the Tigers realise they’ve signed a player who has won nothing since he moved to union, coinciding with the Wallabies’ worst spell since the early 80s. He rarely scores tries and when he does, especially in big games, his team invariably loses.
I hope this stint with Leicester will be the last we see of this vastly overated — but over-exposed and poorly disciplined — player in union. Despite the fact he did practically nothing, Tuqiri again got the headlines on the league-obsessed Foxsports news this morning, with zero mention of the magnificent efforts from the likes of Castrogiovanni, Tuilagi, Mauger, and Youngs.
League can have him back.
bennalong said | November 7th 2009 @ 10:51am | Report comment
Shahsan,
Can I take it you don’t like Lote?
Everyone else……………
The great thing about tours is the unpredictability of the match-ups. I always look foreward to flogging the Poms but it doesn’t always turn out that way.
I was hoping for a ref who’d police the breakdown. Bryce Lawrence failed in Tokyo……………….and as a NZer he may well harbour resentments. Another unpredictable.
For Australia there are a lot of poor defenders in the backline. I gather it’s the same for England. Will it mean tries and running Rugby?
Or will England pin it’s hopes on Jonny as in the past.?
Dean Pantio said | November 7th 2009 @ 11:06am | Report comment
Bryce Lawrence wasn’t the ref in Tokyo. S. M. Lawrence was, from Gauteng, South Africa.
Shahsan said | November 7th 2009 @ 2:21pm | Report comment
Nothing personal against Tuqiri — I don’t know him and I don’t care what he does in his personal life. I just think he has received way more press than he deserved. He was a fantastic league player but nothing special as a union winger. His presence meant the likes of Gerard, Staniforth, Latham and even Roff at RWC 2003 did not get the chances they merited in the Wallabies.
But he was a crowd-puller, and that was important in the ARU’s drive to attract new ie league supporters to the game. But as a player he was nothing special. Usually ran poor lines, took wrong options and forgot how to beat men — he took the ball into contact way too often.
But he was usually the first port of call for Aussie journos, and he talked as if he knew the game.
And as a 7s player he must be one the worst Fijians to ever play that version of the game.
Dean Pantio said | November 8th 2009 @ 6:35am | Report comment
Crowd puller? Really? I’ve never met anyone who went to a rugby game because that overpaid, over-hyped donkey was taking the field.
pothale said | November 7th 2009 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Welll – at the moment, it looks like weather is also going to play a big part as well.
With the exception of the Welsh who have the facility to play under cover (how lucky are they compared to everyone else), it’s going to be open season at Twickenham, Murrayfield, Stade de France, San Siro and Croke Park.
Italy will probably be pleasant though it is in the North of the country. France could be okay too.
Welford Road this evening showed the rain and cold that’s waiting. Don’t know what London’s like at the moment. In Dublin, it’s pouring down in buckets and it’s cold in the evenings.
We could get lucky and the rain stays off on match days, but something tells me that one or two of the matches are going to leave the kit cleaners with a lot of work to do before the next Test. I’m betting on Murrayfield and Croke Park to be the culprits. Wet weather used to suit the Irish – not as much any more. The Scots will love it.
But hey ho that’s the beautiful ugliness of rugby – wouldn’t have it any other way.
tarpo said | November 7th 2009 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
Yes Australia have only won one out of their last seven enounters, but against NZ & SA. “England……
haven’t been that bad”
Really? In their last seven enounters between NZ or SA, England haven’t won any of them!
pothale said | November 8th 2009 @ 1:01am | Report comment
Hmmm. So far with half an hour gone, it’s England with just a nose in front. Genia’s try was nicely taken but poor defending by England let him in at the close.
Wilkinson is getting the metronome going. England need to get over the try linem because Australia are going to score again.
pothale said | November 8th 2009 @ 1:12am | Report comment
Australia should have been over the line after a great break by Robinson. But after a couple of breakdowns, Giteau goes for his trademark burst for the under the posts, gets tackled and stupidly holds on. Relieving penalty kick by Wilko. Will England last to the break with their one point lead?
Yes they do.
pothale said | November 8th 2009 @ 1:31am | Report comment
Oops – make that a four point lead.
Second half starts and England get busy early. England doing well at the breakdown. Has it been my imagination but the reffing at the breakdown hasn’t so much to the fore in the games so far. There’s been penalties for holding on and not rolling away, but all of them clear-cut enough.
Australia are attaking again, and the ball is spread wide first to the right, then over to the left. Pressure is on. Desperate tackling by England. Elsom spoils a chance by ignoring an overlap. The Australia forwards inch forward to the line. Ball out to Giteau who tries to solo it again, ball comes lose, and England kick it away. Giteau at fault. However penalty ensues and Giteau steps up for the kick 30 metres out and it sails over. 9-8 to England.
Justin said | November 8th 2009 @ 1:36am | Report comment
Pocock needs to come on for Smith who has been invisible, very disappointing from Smith considering he was dropped last week. 100 dllars Deans drags Palu though…
pothale said | November 8th 2009 @ 1:39am | Report comment
Brilliant steal by Moody as Australia attack again. A try seems inevitable. australia making all the running. England have to do all the defending. They need to get moving forward but Wilkinson needs to take more control and get them space with some field kicking.
Wave after wave of Australian attacks. And then a penalty conceeded after the 8th phase and Wilko relieves the pressure for the moment. clean take at the lineout by Deacon and England roll a maul forward. out the ball comes and Geraghty takes a quick mis-step and fires forward, out to Monye who is tackled just inside the Australian 22. Ball goes out for lineout to Aus. Haskelll replaces Jordan Crane.
Aus collect cleanly and the reliving kick is taken by Cueto. Mistake as it goes out the line Australia pounce and Ioane takes it up. Grubber kick and AA goes for the line but it’s out of play.
pothale said | November 8th 2009 @ 1:45am | Report comment
Steve Thompson leaves to applause having got his 50th cap and Dylan Hartley the NZ-born Northampton hooker takes his place.
More Australian attacks and Ioane makes a great run, avoids 3-4 tackles and crashes over the line, but somehow he loses the ball and Palu knocks it on. Scrum 5. Wilson is replaced at 3 by Duncan Bell before the scrum packs down.
Genia is on fire and he looks likely to do something more on top of his first half try.
And England collapse the scrum and concede a penalty. Thanks very much says Giteau. This should sail over and give Oz the lead.
And it does. 9-11 to Australia.
pothale said | November 8th 2009 @ 1:52am | Report comment
Back come England immediately. Geraghty kicks deep into 22, but Asutralia run it out in response and kick downfield. The return kick is field by Cooper who is caught. Mad scarmble but ball comes back to Aus and they kick downfield. Banahan takes and runs it back. He steps around two players and passes. Monye takes it up and England are back in the opposoition half. Breakdown and England run a series of pick and gos. Australia knock them back and Aus win a penalty. Great tackle earlier by Giteau on Croft – leaves him stranded and Aus win ball. Downfield again and Australia attck but a dopped ball allows England to counter attack through Haskell.
England dawdle and allow Australia to regroup. Ping-pong kicks, dropped catches, knock-on, and more ping pong, and a lineout to Australia on the half-way. Monye has regressed to his stuttering play. He’s missed two or three chances to make hay.
pothale said | November 8th 2009 @ 2:01am | Report comment
And Ashley Cooper scores a powerful try to give Australia a greater lead. Well deserved and Giteau converts it.
Any way back for England? Unlkely. 8 mins to go.
reds fan said | November 8th 2009 @ 2:10am | Report comment
What a pitful game. Neither side looked good.
Justin said | November 8th 2009 @ 2:21am | Report comment
I actually didnt mind it, at least it wasnt a boring kick-a-thon like some of the latest Tests. Agree it wasnt the top shelf but I enjoyed it for the most part.
Genia was sensational. Our back 3 was very average and Mitchell was probably the best. AAC got points for his try but his kicking and options again showed me he isnt a real 15. Cooper showed how to break a defensive line and he provides a genuine option at 10, I enjoyed his game (although you sometimes have you heart in your mouth), he is a rare talent.
Palu started well and drifted out of the match. Smith was terrible by his standards, Moody killed him and he isnt quick!
The lineout is a disgrace no matter who is throwing. You cannot continue to win Tests with that sort of execution.
I missed what happened to Digby, can anyone clarify?
cookie said | November 8th 2009 @ 2:24am | Report comment
yep england had nothing and wilkinson never went for territory or posts in second half which was their only chance;so result inevitable and best team won. yawn
pothale said | November 8th 2009 @ 2:23am | Report comment
And Aus take it. Well done to them. 4 games to go.
ThelmaWrites said | November 8th 2009 @ 2:37am | Report comment
Well done too, Pothale. I’m impressed by your running keyboard commentary…And so to Ireland!
Dean Pantio said | November 8th 2009 @ 2:32am | Report comment
Congratulations to Australia. Easily the more enterprising of the two teams. England too busy going from side to side without going forward. Apart from Wilkinson, no real incisive runners. Almost looked clueless at times.
P.S.: After that I don’t want to hear Wallaby supporters complain about how other teams go off their feet and roll onto the wrong side of the ruck.
Justin said | November 8th 2009 @ 2:51am | Report comment
I think they were penalised enough…
Dean Pantio said | November 8th 2009 @ 3:03am | Report comment
Eleven times is enough, but the All Blacks were penalised 13 times in Tokyo and that wasn’t?
Justin said | November 8th 2009 @ 3:08am | Report comment
Ours werent for rolling on the wrong side of the ruck mostly
Terry Kidd said | November 8th 2009 @ 5:41am | Report comment
I’m happy but KO won’t be …. Wallabies by 9 was my pick and thats what happened.
I’m still dead set against ACC at 15 …. his kicks in the first half were dumb and embarrassing …. he should be banned from kicking altogether.
The lineout is a disgrace but seemingly more so when Moore is throwing. The throws are either going to the wrong spot, they are too slow, someone is telegraphing the receiver or …… bugger, I don’t know.
I though Moody had a brilliant game and totally blitzed Smith. On that effort Smith will be sitting out next week again.
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 12:53am | Report comment
Congrats Terry. I’d offer something to say on the game but I had been blitzkrieged by European lagers. My lack of recollection is probably why I’m not that disappointed.
Parisien said | November 9th 2009 @ 4:14am | Report comment
Knives – the right to reply is curiously missing from your posts higher up.
“Rugby union fans know that the spine of the team drives the team. Please explain to me why having drawn a series in NZ and maintained the same side for two tests in a row why France decided to completely remove Servat, Picamoles, Dupuy, Trinh-Duc, Traille and Medard?”
- Did you have time to look at the team sheet I pasted above (and on an earlier thread as well)? – Szarwesky is a great hooker, more mobile than Servat and usually picked ahead of him; Picamoles was sent home after the Bastereaud incident and also had an injury; Yachvili is as good a half back as Dupuy, has more caps, different style, probably picked for his kicking abilities; Trinh Duc appeared exhausted after NZ, but Beauxis is an excellent experienced 10 with a great kicking and running game, and as for Traille and Medard – they played, and well!! Did you watch the game?
“Why did Lievremont pick a team to kick when a) France has superior running backs to Australia” – BOTH CLAIMS DEBATABLE! Medard, Heymans, Fritz and Mermoz, with Vincent Clerc on the bench all provide plenty of running options.
” Australia plays a kicking game ” -gross generalisation, but one you like to repeat. Yes, they have kicked more often under Deans, usually poorly, but for arguably good reasons against NZ and SA. I don’t think they are a boring kicking team as you like to say. Have you watched the England -Wallabies game yet by the way? Two trys to zero. The stats showed England kicked more as well… You like to tell us that they play brilliant running rugby, where was it? Not all the fault of injuries and replacement players. The coaching? lack of talent? The lack of go-forward from the forwards?…Could it be because the Wallabies played better?
“Do you think that Lievremont thought France would kick their way to victory ” NO
“or do you think that the majority of the French players were physically drained and therefore the coach took the option of damage limitation?”- NO, but needed the kicking cards at his disposal.
“4. Where do I constantly assert that the France team was ridiculous? ”
- You said most specifically on another thread that the French team picked to play the Wallabies was “ridiculous” Have you forgotten? You even said it twice. Is it it the hangover blurring your memory?
Anyway, this has gone on long enough. From me at least, end of subject.
pothale said | November 9th 2009 @ 4:19am | Report comment
Parisien – FYI
there’s nothing mysterious or curious about right to reply missing from some people’s posts. There’s five sub-levels of reply from each anchor post. This is the first sub-level.
When you hit the fifth level, you use the reply button from the previous post so that it sits directly under the fifth sub-level – the system doesn’t create a sixth sub-level.
pothale said | November 9th 2009 @ 4:20am | Report comment
Reply sub-level 2
pothale said | November 9th 2009 @ 4:21am | Report comment
Reply sub-level 3
pothale said | November 9th 2009 @ 4:21am | Report comment
Reply sub-level 4
pothale said | November 9th 2009 @ 4:22am | Report comment
Reply sub-level 5
pothale said | November 9th 2009 @ 4:25am | Report comment
And if you want to respond to the fifth level of reply, you use the previous reply level and it sits underneath it.
Parisien said | November 9th 2009 @ 5:12am | Report comment
thanks Pothale!
Colin N said | November 9th 2009 @ 4:35am | Report comment
“The stats showed England kicked more as well”
But also made more passes.
“You like to tell us that they play brilliant running rugby, where was it? Not all the fault of injuries and replacement players. The coaching? lack of talent? The lack of go-forward from the forward?”
I don’t think KO said that. He said England generally like to keep the ball in hand, which they did, but there was a lack of invention. That could be down to the injuries. The backline against France was Care, Flood, Monye, Flutey, Tindall, Cueto, Armitage. So the fact that the coaches had to work with a completely knew backline, with very little time could have affected things. I’m not saying it definitely did, but it is possible.
Also, England struggled to get quick ball. The front five was slow and plodding and generally slow to support. Things improved when Haskell and Lawes came on.
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 5:00am | Report comment
‘Knives – the right to reply is curiously missing from your posts higher up.
What would you like me to say to that? I’m confused by what your point is?
–
“Rugby union fans know that the spine of the team drives the team. Please explain to me why having drawn a series in NZ and maintained the same side for two tests in a row why France decided to completely remove Servat, Picamoles, Dupuy, Trinh-Duc, Traille and Medard?”
- Did you have time to look at the team sheet I pasted above (and on an earlier thread as well)? – Szarwesky is a great hooker, more mobile than Servat and usually picked ahead of him; Picamoles was sent home after the Bastereaud incident and also had an injury; Yachvili is as good a half back as Dupuy, has more caps, different style, probably picked for his kicking abilities; Trinh Duc appeared exhausted after NZ, but Beauxis is an excellent experienced 10 with a great kicking and running game, and as for Traille and Medard – they played, and well!! Did you watch the game?’
I really don’t think you comprehend what I’m saying. France changed the entire spine of their team. The entire spine that had just won in NZ. Whether or not you think the new players are good or not is totally and completely irrelevant. Anyhow, If these players are so good then why were they not selected to start the two tests in NZ against a far superior team?
Beauxis does not have a great running game nor is he especially experienced. Do you watch rugby? How many caps does he have?
–
“Why did Lievremont pick a team to kick when a) France has superior running backs to Australia” – BOTH CLAIMS DEBATABLE! Medard, Heymans, Fritz and Mermoz, with Vincent Clerc on the bench all provide plenty of running options.
Yachvili, Beauxis and Traille are all kickers. Medard was a full back selected to play on the wing. That conservative selection further consolidates my point. Clerc was on the bench. I repeat… Clerc was on the bench.
–
” Australia plays a kicking game ” -gross generalisation, but one you like to repeat. Yes, they have kicked more often under Deans, usually poorly, but for arguably good reasons against NZ and SA. I don’t think they are a boring kicking team as you like to say. Have you watched the England -Wallabies game yet by the way? Two trys to zero. The stats showed England kicked more as well… You like to tell us that they play brilliant running rugby, where was it? Not all the fault of injuries and replacement players. The coaching? lack of talent? The lack of go-forward from the forwards?…Could it be because the Wallabies played better?
Australia likes to kick the ball… something that has long been discussed on The Roar and something that you actually admit. Were they a running side then we would have seen more tries over the past two seasons. One game where England kicked more than Australia does not dilute that point. I have noticed that a handful of SH Roarers were surprised by how much ball England ran. I can’t comment on that for obvious reasons. Btw, why would you ask me if I watched the game when you have referenced the fact I was drunk at the time? Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit – especially when it is constructed poorly.
Does two tries scored by Australia reflect a decade of laissez-faire, loose Harlem Globetrotter rugby or does it reflect a game where one team scored two tries and the other scored none? I have never said that England play brilliant running rugby. Please follow the threads accurately and do not misquote me. It is tiresome and undermines any potential point you might think you have. What I have said is that England have played with ball in hand a lot more under Johnson and Smith than they did under Ashton and Robinson.
–
“Do you think that Lievremont thought France would kick their way to victory ” NO
Why did he pick a backline of kickers that was far more conservative than the selections in NZ? You have asserted that Yachvili was selected due to his kicking abilites and that France needed kicking options. Why if the coach didn’t specifically pick players to kick?
–
“or do you think that the majority of the French players were physically drained and therefore the coach took the option of damage limitation?”- NO, but needed the kicking cards at his disposal.
But you have already suggested that Trinh-Duc was ‘rested’ because he appeared physically drained. If that is the case do you think that he was the only tired player? How many weeks and games of rugby had the french squad played last year?
–
Not all the fault of injuries and replacement players. The coaching? lack of talent? The lack of go-forward from the forwards?…Could it be because the Wallabies played better?
What is the relevance of this statement? I could offer myriad reasons why England lost but I fail to see what England has to so with Australia v France.
–
You said most specifically on another thread that the French team picked to play the Wallabies was “ridiculous” Have you forgotten? You even said it twice. Is it it the hangover blurring your memory?
I have said this consistently have I? Have I? I’m not sure twice counts as consistent or continuous.
–
Anyway, this has gone on long enough. From me at least, end of subject.
Ii should certainly hope so. You have attempted to start a boring internet argument where there is no need for one and on occasion you have resorted to personal insults. That is a sad state of affairs.
Parisien said | November 9th 2009 @ 5:42am | Report comment
Knives- this really is my last reply on this subject(!) but how to be brief? By the way, I write this in a friendly, sincere and good natured way with nothing but good intentions. Insert a smiley face here if you want, I don’t know how to! but perhaps Pothale can teach me (lol)
- France changed their team from NZ for Australia (and its spine). I agree. I think this was always their intention. Different horses for courses, and of course some players were tired! Lievremont loves rotating his players around. The new team were all combinations that had been used before, with experienced players(except Puricelli). The team was not ridiculous, and the Wallaby win had merit.
- I was not being sarcastic. You had mentioned a hangover. I assumed you would watch a replay of the match.
- I don’t think I have ever misquoted you, and actually agree with many of your points, but obviously not all.
- When did I ever insult you?!! On the other hand, I think you’ve called me various names ranging from “champ”, used sarcastically, to “Rumplestiltskin”, as well as questioning my “credentials” and even my “pedigree”. I have read many of your threads, and you often get both personal, and defensive, with those who disagree with you, for no apparent reason.
Why question someone’s credibility or pedigree on a common rugby blog – its somewhat absurd, no?
I’ve always responded calmly and quite happily. Perhaps you have mis-interpreted some of my threads, but your latest reply suggests you are taking this all far more personally and seriously than me. To reassure you, I think you make many good points and contributions, I always enjoy reading them, but if I should disagree, don’t get upset, I’ll be happy to defend my opinions in a friendly and non-threatening way.
Now can we all move on? By the way, I too enjoy Guinness and sausage, but separately! I too love boxing, and I mentioned earlier you are welcome to visit me at my boxing club in Paris for a training session followed by a cold drink!
In good spirit, yours sincerely, best regards, etc etc
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 5:53am | Report comment
I call lots of people ‘champ or ‘boss’. No sarcasm intended. No personal insult intended. Who have I recently got personal with, btw? Also, there’s nothing particularly rude in questioning somebody’s pedigree. There’s no taboo there. It’s just like repeatedly asking if people saw a specific game. If you took offence then I apologise profusely. Your responses have always struck me as excessively melodramatic and OTT. There was no need whatsoever to strike up the Australia v France debate, for example. Anyhow, in conclusion I’m not taking anything personally (despite being labelled a virus…), and I hope you aren’t either. In good spirit too.
P.S. I didn’t mean the use of Rumpelstiltskin to be taken seriously. I was trying to defuse a situation but I suppose that doesn’t come across well.
Terry Kidd said | November 9th 2009 @ 6:22am | Report comment
…. and peace reigned throughout the Roar cyber world. Back to the game ….
I thought Moody was very, very good all match and totally blitzed Smith who was invisible. I thought Palu had another stormer and I don’t understand why Deans subs him so early …. leave him on and make him play longer minutes. He was awesome in defence.
I thought Robinson was the best prop on the ground and he is making serious inroads into becoming the best No 1 in world rugby.
Of the backs I liked Cooper and he played 10 rather than 12. Giteau in my mind had a poor game and took many wrong options, especially close to the line.
KO you were right about Banahan …. too slow for his position but he can unload nicely.
Unfortunately I think I was right when I said that the Wallabies would win by 9 but it should have been far more …. overall they were the better side but they also absolutely murdered multiple try scoring opportunities. Next week to Ireland and I’m not as confident as I was this week.
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 6:57am | Report comment
Can’t offer comment, Terry. I missed the Leicester v SA match, England v Australia, Wales v NZ and England v NZ (rugby league). However, if Johnson makes some changes this Tuesday I’ll be halfway happy. From what I’ve read and seen on replay the positives are the return of players who were injured last season (Thompson, Moody and Wilkinson) and the impact made by some of the subs (Hartley, Haskell and Hodgson). The negatives are the confirmation that some players are not good enough for test rugby (L. Deacon, Crane, Banahan and Monye at 15). I’m not concerned by the lack of direction simply due to the amount of new players and combinations. Some changes on Tuesday and a good win against Argentina should perk some of the more conservative Twickers brigade.