By Spiro Zavos
November 9th 2009 @ 5:38am
Related coverage
The Wallabies slam England in a terrific Test
England's Jonny Wilkinson, right, tackles Australia's Matt Giteau, left, during their international rugby union match at Twickenham stadium, London, Saturday, Nov. 7, 2009. (AP Photo/Alastair Grant)
In the end the Wallabies defeated England quite comfortably 18 – 9 to win the first Test of this Grand Slam tour. This was a Test the Wallabies had to win. And they won it playing inventive, attractive and skilful rugby with a confidence that grew as the Test developed.
The Grand Slam dream remains alive, although the Wallabies will have to raise their game again to defeat the reigning Six Nations champions, Ireland.
That great rugby pundit Mike Carlton was reduced to calling for Robbie Deans’ head in his Saturday political column in The Sydney Morning Herald.
There was a genuine – and to a certain extent justified – unease about where the Wallabies were going this year. Six of their last seven Tests had been lost. And a loss to an injury-plagued, poorly-coached England side, would have had the knives flashing against Deans.
There has been, as well, a disenchantment with the quality of the play of the Wallabies, and the Australian Super 14 sides, that reflected, I believe, the feeling that the Wallabies just were not putting in enough on the field to justify their big salaries and their status as an iconic Australian team.
So there was a lot to be played for at Twickenham, a ground where England is hard to defeat even when the side is going through one of its bad patches. This season, for instance, England lost all its away Six Nations Tests and won all the Tests at Twickenham. Jonny Wilkinson has won 30 of his 34 Tests at the ground.
90,000 spectators crowded into the ground in the expectation of being the 16th player, as they have so often in the past.
England might have had a number of players out injured (but only a handful of front-line players) but the ground with its vast stands and its one-eyed supporters has been a fortress for the home side for 100 years.
At Fortress Twickenham, for example, England has won 10 Tests, Australia 8 and one drawn. In Australia, the Wallabies have had 13 wins and England only 2 wins.
And it was not long, a matter of only two minutes in fact, before the sounds of ‘Swing Low Sweet Chariot …’ were resounding around the ground as Jonny Wilkinson calmly potted a drop goal to give England an early lead. This was his 30th drop goal in Test rugby, the most any player (including Hugo Porta) has kicked.
Wilkinson remains the master of converting field position and pressure into points for his side. The dropped goal was another example of the master at work. This was followed by a neatly taken penalty not long after.
In any criticism of the plodding, clueless play of England throughout the match (a criticism made, in fact, by the British journalists who are calling for manager Martin Johnson’s head), Wilkinson must be excused.
I thought he was magnificent. He kicked splendidly, tackled well, ran and passed brilliantly. He was a one-man band. But what a band!
Just before half-time the Wallabies had an attacking scrum in front of England’s goal-posts. There was a huge blindside which was being guarded by the massive winger, in build but not in talent, Matt Banahan. The obvious tactic was for Matt Giteau or Quade Cooper to run the blind and draw Banahan and put the Wallaby winger Peter Hynes in for an easy try. Instead, though, Giteau ran hard at Wilkinson’s inside shoulder. The champion made the tackle.
In fact, Giteau and Cooper made a point at running at Wilkinson who duly knocked them over every time.
The tactic seemed to me to be stupid. Wilkinson is a terrific tackler, as he demonstrated time after time. Why didn’t they ran hard at Shane Geraghty, a noted weak tackler?
The only explanation I can offer for this strange tactic of running at Wilkinson is that it was a tactic to wear the great man down. It seemed to work, if this was the intent, as Wilkinson was puffing like a bishop chasing a bus throughout the second half.
It seemed to me, too, that once the Wallabies got the lead they’d win the Test. I wrote in my notebook: ‘58th minute. Crucial penalty by Giteau. Yes!!! First time in the lead 11 – 9.’
Then in the 71st minute Adam Ashley-Cooper just blasted his way through what seemed to be a white wall of English defenders, plaster rather than cement, to score the decisive try, which was converted by Giteau.
There was a lot of talk before the Test about Deans’ bold selection of Cooper at inside centre. The experiment paid off. Cooper’s tackling has improved.
There is still occasionally a headless chook aspect to his play, much like that of his hero Carlos Spencer. But Cooper’s passing and running gave the Wallabies an extra dimension in their attacking play.
The difference this made to the Wallabies varied attack when compared with that of England was apparent at the end of the match when the home side – finally – decided to do some attacking play.
But it was one-dimensional, aside from the interventions of Wilkinson. And with time up a series of phases to nowhere was ended with a chip kick into the Wallaby 22 which was gratefully marked and booted into the grandstands.
The win by the Wallabies was needed to encourage the team and its supporters that the Deans’ root and branch changes are going to result in a stronger Australian side in the near future.
Supporters of rugby in Australia needed a terrific Test like this, too, to renew their faith in the game and to show that it is not only New Zealand and South African players who are capable of playing winning and enterprising rugby.
The Wallabies will have to lift their game to another notch now against Ireland which will be pretty confident of ending any Grand Slam aspirations of their opponents at Croke Park.
The performance against England suggests that the Wallabies are capable of doing this but by no means is this a certainty.
The brilliant victory against the world’s best side the Springboks at Brisbane was followed by a pathetic loss to the All Blacks at Wellington, for instance.
Nothing less than the sort of form shown against the Springboks and against England in the second half on Saturday will be needed to achieve the second leg of the Grand Slam quest.
Super 14 Tipping now live on The Roar. Join now.
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...
(270)
Andrew Logan said | November 9th 2009 @ 5:53am | Report comment
Spiro,
Good rundown. I have to agree on Wilkinson – his 80 minute effort was just outstanding in every respect.
I think you are being charitable to Giteau though! He has shown before that his go-to tactic as a flyhalf is to step and straighten into the defence, and I think this Test showed once again that he is a poor option in that spot. Oh for the chance to field Barnes and Cooper together! If it wasn’t for Genia and Cooper providing an extra spark, Giteau’s poor option taking would have been more obvious…lucky for him….unlucky for us.
Greg Russell said | November 9th 2009 @ 3:39pm | Report comment
Andrew, don’t worry, I have no licence to disagree with you, as I didn’t see the match (in NZ it was only shown on a special pay-TV channel for which one must pay an extra subscription).
However I would caution against a general trend in comments by passionate Wallaby supporters, which is that players invariably get a lot better through being absent. The latest example of this is Rocky Elsom, who while well worth his place in the side (obviously), is turning out to be a somewhat underwhelming version of “the best player in the world” (as BOD excitedly described him after the HC final), a description that many Wallaby supporters were all too happy to put on the mantlepiece in pride of place … while he was not playing for Australia.
The same tends to happen with the regularly absent Berrick Barnes … not just you but many others salivate over his potential while he is absent, at the same time forgetting that he makes at least as many mistakes as Giteau … remember his match-costing pass into George Smith’s head in Auckland this year?
It’s also worth pointing out that Genia, Barnes, Cooper, Ioane was the Qld 9-10-12-13 for much of this season. Yes, yes, I know that forwards are important. But the fact is that if these 4 are as outstanding a combination as some are now claiming, then Qld’s season wouldn’t have been as bad as it was.
International rugby is a bloody tough nut where players are placed under enormous pressure and ideal-world skills are very difficult to bring into the open. This is what makes a player like Dan Carter so incredibly special. On the training ground he may be no better than Giteau or Barnes, but under pressure his skills invariably hold up.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 4:12pm | Report comment
Greg interesting that neither you or almost anyone else ever mentions wings or full-backs, as if their performances are irrelevant. Perhaps if Australian rugby was more interested in them they might develop some good ones.
Greg Russell said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:12am | Report comment
kpm: i don’t think wings or full-backs are irrelevant. however it’s a fact that the most influential players in world rugby at the moment, the ones who really determine how games unfold, have numbers between 4 and 10 on their backs, players like Botha, Matfield, du Preez, Thorn, McCaw, Carter. Everyone on a rugby field is important, but right now these positions seem to be more important (note that John Smit’s value lies in his leadership rather than his playing contribution per se).
i know you like your league, so to put it in league terms: everyone on a league field is important, but the ones with numbers 1, 6, 7 and 9 seem to keep cropping up as being the most important. Yes, Inglis bucks this trend, but every rule has exceptions (a bit like Habana in union). Jarryd Hayne’s current problems should probably be seen in this context: having been moved from FB to the wing, he is struggling to have any impact on events.
pothale said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:59pm | Report comment
“The latest example of this is Rocky Elsom, who while well worth his place in the side (obviously), is turning out to be a somewhat underwhelming version of “the best player in the world” (as BOD excitedly described him after the HC final), a description that many Wallaby supporters were all too happy to put on the mantlepiece in pride of place … while he was not playing for Australia.”
Greg – I’ve punctured this balloon a few times, but it’s worthwhile re-stating in advance of the match against Ireland on Sunday. O’Driscoll described Elsom as the ‘best player he had played with’ in the aftermath of the Cup final. The supposed quote you have was made up by SH journalists from: “”I would say the best player I have ever played with and I have played with many good players.”
It’s still a fine compliment given BOD has played with quite a few good players over the years in Leinster, Ireland, Barbarians and Lions.
The litmus test will be after the match next Sunday – will Elsom be the best player O’Driscoll has played against?
Wix said | November 11th 2009 @ 9:09pm | Report comment
Andrew
I agree with about Giteaux. But what you should have added was that Giteaux played as he always does, but the coach keeps selecting him. Can you or anyone else please offer an explanation?
katzilla said | November 9th 2009 @ 6:00am | Report comment
The hovering axe remains, this was nothing more then expected against a weak England team.
Some great positives were seen with a couple of Dean’s newer selections, and Palu finally stepped up for more then 20 minutes.
Imo AAC at 2nd five with Ioane outside him and Giteau at the back, he attacks the line well when its broken down but set defensives shut him down quite easily. From fullback he’d have a few more options for his running game.
CraigB said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:09am | Report comment
AAc is a very good player but inside centre is easily his worst position as he doesn’t have the passing game
Nicol'arse said | November 9th 2009 @ 4:06pm | Report comment
Have you ever seen AAC make a break AND then offload with a pass to a support player. Think hard about it. I have NEVER seen him do it.
Don’t get me wrong, I like his line breaking skills. But he really needs to learn how to look around him and USE his support.
mcxd said | November 9th 2009 @ 6:01am | Report comment
I agree Spiro, it would have been disasterous for Australian Rugby if the Wallabies were to loose this game. absolute disaster. I wouldnt like to think of what could have evenutated. At least now they can go into the game against Ireland with a bit of confidence and rugby really is a confidence game. Though Ireland i fear will provide a much tougher challenge. It must also be said that Wilkinson really is a class player.
Klestical said | November 9th 2009 @ 11:53am | Report comment
but can we win 2 in a row, that is the question
SideShowBob said | November 9th 2009 @ 6:02am | Report comment
Watching the game, particularly the second half display from the Wallaby backline, it became apparent that it is no longer enough to simply to crash over the advantage line for umpteen phases but to run different lines of attack, create space/holes and evade the tackler(s) through sheer skill, agility and will. An art, I feel, that has to been lost to the Wallabies game plan for some time. When they flexed their arm in this way, it looked very exciting rugby indeed.
I have high hopes for a Wallaby grand slam, however it will take much more cleverness, guile and clinical ball handling than what was on display against England to beat the Irish and the Welsh.
Looking forward to the next tests with great interest.
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 6:13am | Report comment
Can’t comment on the game – didn’t watch it (I sort of did), but I would like to state that the English media calling for the head of Johnson is outrageous. In the cases of Barnes and Jones from The Sunday Times the pair are waging a personal agenda against Johnson due to the fact that Johnson will not let Jones have time with the English squad. Perhaps the coaching set-up needs a review but Johnson has done a lot of good work with England. Johnson has been a daring selector and has showed patience with his team. The team had 24 players injured with a lot of those being first teamers and yet despite being allegedly rubbish the side was only 2 points behind the 3rd ranked team with only 7 minutes left in the match. A lot of English fans support Johnson and the side.
Mr cheese said | November 9th 2009 @ 8:35am | Report comment
Knives, Dear Boy
I cannot read all the comments to find out if you mention it, SO………………tell me how the fight was between Haye and Valuev. I listened to it on 5 Live. Bunce, Costello and Woodhall thought that Haye clearly won it but apparently some of the TV commentators disagreed.
Was it any good ? Haye has been saying that perhaps 5000 of the supporters were British ? Was that right ? It sounds like it was a bit drab but I suppose a win’s a win. Ask the Aussie Rugby team.
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:03pm | Report comment
It was a good night. The locals were pleasant and the atmosphere was thumping. Haye did what he had to do. I can see there might have been a difference of opinion – as there tends to be in boxing, but I cannot see how Haye should have lost. I met a friend over there and he was moaning about the German travel costs. Instead of travelling 3 hours (the distance he lives from Nuremeberg) he ended up travelling 8 hours. I’m not sure why.
Daniel J said | November 9th 2009 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
“yet despite being allegedly rubbish the side was only 2 points behind the 3rd ranked team with only 7 minutes left in the match”
Assuming you are referring to the Oz v England match, It was an 18 – 9 loss to England old chap. Go and watch a replay of the game, give credit where its due, Australia played well, so did England for what they had.
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:00pm | Report comment
What can I say to such an odd response? You know full well what I am referring to. I am not not giving credit where it is due I am pointing out that for such a callow team the score was 9-11 until the 72nd or 73rd minute – hence there is no need for the vitriolic melodrama we see from sections of the British media. Is that incorrect or unfair? You’re attempting to make a problem where there isn’t one.
pothale said | November 9th 2009 @ 6:54am | Report comment
Don’t worry KO, a week is a long time in sport, never mind in politics.
Jones will shortly be sharpening his quill for his pet hate team, Ireland, and its captain – ‘he wouldn’t be in my Lions team’ O’Driscoll.
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:01am | Report comment
I saw that he thinks McGeechan MUST be the England DoR and that was enough for me. I feel sorry Johnson really. He made mistakes last Autumn then apparently rectified those mistakes during the 6N and now he’s been shorn of players he introduced to test rugby and helped develop and yet the world (or at least The Times and a few other gobshite attention-seekers) are after blood. I’m in a holiday mood, anyway. I’m off to Egypt this week. No winter stresses for me for a little while.
P.S. What’s up with Horan?
pothale said | November 9th 2009 @ 8:23am | Report comment
Yeaj I saw that story last night with its attention grabbing headline. When I read the story there was no mention of McGeechan in it. And today, it had one line attached to it deep within the copy:
‘Smith clearly had a gauntlet which he could have picked up, a Lions legacy he could have used, but on the evidence of yesterday, he has ignored it. It would help him if the profoundly conservative Johnson-Wells axis would raise its horizons — or even better, if England made Ian McGeechan their head coach this morning.”
Just one line but a sufficient shiv in the ribs. Coupled with the earlier observation that:
“Nor is there evidence that Johnson himself is cracking the whip. I am sure that he is doing so, and would not expect him to admit it in his media conferences. But anyone can sit there looking dangerous in a suit. The Johnson I admired to the bottom of his studs — and these days, to the soles of his loafers — has all but disappeared into the same morass as his players.”
Ouch.
Anyway, word is that Horan had to have some minor heart surgery in last couple of days which surprised the hell out of me, but would be a pointer to the dizziness he experienced in a recent match. They say he should return in the New Year, but he could easily go the way of Simon Best and be forced to retire. A tough way to go.
Healy looks pencilled into his place, and I suspect that Flannery won’t be ready either so it’s likely that Healy’s Leinster partner, John Fogarty may have to step up as a test newbie.
Hayes will play despite the lack of game time – Kidney doesn’t really have a choice. Buckley is out injured. Ross has been so-so, and is in the A squad.
However, Hayes skills in the lifting department are renowned, and given Australia’s weakness in this department, O’Connell will want him in there. Joining O’Connell is likely to be the second O, Donncha who has been the better of the two this season. Cullen likely on the bench, I hope.
O’Connell needs to lift his game back to where he was in the 6 Nations, and not just secure the Irish lineout, but also play hell with the Aus one – along with Ferris and O’Callaghan.
Given Heaslip’s drop in performance, Kidney might go for the form guy and put Leamy in at 8, with Jamie on the bench possibly? Wallace will take 7. (unfortunately for him, O’Brien is in the A squad.)
If that’s the likely line-up then Australia may have the edge in the scrums, with Ireland in the line-outs. The uncapped Healy and Fogarty will be in for a tough start to their test careers. Hopefully, Cian comes out of the blocks running.
Kidney is hedging his bets with one eye to the WC, and has stacked the A squad for Tonga with people like Horgan, Trimble and Stringer, Boss, Cave and Humphreys, along with some of the young gun forwards like Henry, McLaughlin, Toner, and O’Brien. Some of them might get a call up to the seniors for the Fiji game.
In the backs, O’Leary will be up against Genia with Reddan supporting. Unfortunately, in my view, I think Kidney will go for the experience of O’Gara at 10. I just think this is an accident waiting to happen. If the Lions moment of madness was a once-off, it has affected ROG’s game ever since. His place-kicking game is way off, and his tactical kicking out of hand, which was one of the best in the game in my view, has become sloppy. He hasn’t had a good game for Munster to date. Sexton is the better choice despite being inexperienced, but stands up better in the tackle, and has similar bursts to Giteau to break the line and get go forward. Would love to see him get a chance for the big stage, and I think his match-winning experience with Leinster last season would stand him in good stead.
Again, at 12, Kidney may pick the seeming reliability of Darcy, but his form has not been as good as Paddy Wallace who has played out of his skin so far this season. Defensively, Darcy is the better of the two, though. With O’Driscoll outside at 13, then the back three could have a slightly different look if Kearney doesn’t recover from his hamstring injury – I’d say 40% at best. Earls or Fitz to 15 with Bowe on the other wing.
If Kearney is fit, then Kidney could change things up a bit, in my view. I think he should shift O’Driscoll to 12 and bring Bowe in at 13 where’s he’s being playing fairly regularly with Ospreys. Now that would be a backline with pace, guile and invention.
Still, we have to wait on injuries, and to see whether Kidney is going to really commit to his mantra of picking on form.
I know you only asked about Horan, but I thought I’d throw in the other stuff anyway. For free, like.
mcxd said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:19am | Report comment
If i was a selector i woulld give Sexton a run instead of O’Gara too. No time like now to blood new players (and very promising ones) before the 6N….Maybe risky but quite benificial for the future. I think the lad will do well.
Robbo said | November 9th 2009 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
You blood players in games that don’t matter (like Ireland’s game against Fiji in a couple of weeks time). You do not do it when you are the 4th best team in the world playing the 3rd best team in the world, at home, in front of 80,000 people. Everyone seems to be so clouded by the “Lions incident” that they forget that, not six months ago, O’Gara slotted a 79th minute drop goal to win Ireland’s first grand slam in 60 years.
mcxd said | November 9th 2009 @ 6:58pm | Report comment
fair enough Robbo, i still think Sextons worth a go at some stage during the match. Hes one to watch.
pothale said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:46pm | Report comment
Robboi, I haven’t forgotten O’Gara’s match-winning drop goal at all.
However, if you have watched O’Gara this season – and I’ve watched every minute of his play to date – then he is a pale shadow of what he was. I’ve nothing against the guy, he has been the ultimate servant to Irish rugby. However, if you ain’t on form, you ain’t on form. And do you want to use a high-profile test match to discover how badly out of form he might be.
Let’s say he plays, and has another moment of head spin, the brickbats would be flying in Kidney’s direction. Sexton has put a lot of experience under his belt in a short space of time. Why not give young blood a chance against Australia? Unlike the 6 Nations, there’s not a lot riding on this match – more in it for Australia than for Ireland in my view. Of course, Ireland should aim to win, but sometimes you need to dare in order to gain the victory.
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 11:16pm | Report comment
Crumbs… that’s a long one.
Jones:
The issue I have with Jones is that he’s a poor journalist. I’ve heard that he’s a decent man but on a professional level he is misinformed and tends to err on the wrong side of spiteful, which is unfortunate for a man in his position. Since day 1 of the EPS agreement he has moaned that players don’t need to be in camp for that long. His reason for this is that Woodward’s side had little time in camp. This conveniently forgets the fact that a) that England side was one of the best English sides ever, and b) that Woodward has publicly noted time and time again that any success that England attained during his period in charge was despite the GP context. He wanted more time in camp.
Jones has made a career of sniping at NZ and Australia (but not SA) and the Super tournament. Yet if it is so poor then why do the SH sides regularly beat the NH sides? They spend by far the longest amount of time in camp and yet succeed despite an allegedly superficial domestic tournament. It’s awfully hypocritical logic. He’s an amateur journalist from an amateur era. The Times is descending into tabloid drivel anyway. Water always finds a level.
–
Ireland:
Thank you. Didactic and interesting. I can’t add much really. Much like the England and Wales teams some players are out of form, and some aren’t (That’s such a bland comment, isn’t it?). However, the players out of form are proven test performers and the players in form aren’t, which means they have a good opportunity to start their international careers well. Can Ireland do a SA and win when they aren’t playing that well, and have all that experience pull them through? I think they can.
I’d also like to see Bowe play 13 but is there a real need to play him there just yet? Should D’Arcy and Wallace be trusted enough to have a crack?
Bizarre news about Horan. I hope he recovers well.
Shahsan said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:54am | Report comment
Knives Out,
Stephen Jones a poor journalist? Why do you say this? What do you mean by he is “misinformed”?And, may I ask, what is your background in journalism, if any?
Viscount Crouchback said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:34am | Report comment
Jones is an opinionator and a wind-up merchant. And, like most of the British press, he appears to have bipolar disorder.
The best British rugby journalists are David Hands of The Times and Paul Rees of The Guardian. Hands is good because, though slightly on the dull side, he has good contacts, remains balanced and moderate and resiles from cheap shots. Rees is good because he actually forms his own opinions on the basis of what he’s seen, rather than merely repeating the conventional wisdom because it sounds good and sells papers (Kitson, Cleary, Jones, etc). Ackford is probably the worst: he’s a sub-Jones opnionator with a propensity for hissy fits. It’s hard to believe that he ever played the game to the level he did.
The conventional wisdom of the moment is that Jonno has had twelve months and England are no better and it’s time to start getting jolly mad because though Jonno is big and scary, he’s just too innately conservative to encourage the chaps to run with depth and guile, blah blah blah
The truth is that injuries in effect shoved Jonno straight back to square one this Autumn (only four survivors from the same fixture last year) and therefore the talk about “twelve months and no progress” is utterly unfair. Equally, the signs from the Six Nations were that England are capable of playing some decent attacking rugby when their key combinations have been together long enough to develop some understanding.
Most of the English sporting press is fixated with the short-term and deeply simplistic in its outlook.
stillmissit said | November 10th 2009 @ 11:58am | Report comment
Viscount Crouchback – Same over here, although our main man is as thick as the brick he looks to throw to try to attract readers. This does not disguise the fact that he knows nothing about rugby.
Shahsan said | November 10th 2009 @ 7:08pm | Report comment
Viscount,
You don’t like his views but that doesn’t make him a poor journalist or even writer.
i agree Jones and Ackford are very opionated but that makes them stand out from the crowd, most of whom are pretty bland though they may be informative.
Stillmissit, do you mean Greg Growden? If so, I couldn’t agree with you more. Worst rugby writer in the First World, matched only by NZ Herald’s Chris Rattue.
stillmissit said | November 11th 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
Shasan – who else the rugby reporter for league followers who want to hear the manufactured headlines.
hayden said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:31am | Report comment
God, I remember Jones writing a sickeningly sycophantic piece about MJ when he first took the reins. It took bromance to new and disconcerting depths. Now the irrelevant snake has turned on his erstwhile hero.
Shahsan said | November 10th 2009 @ 7:12pm | Report comment
Yes, i remember that. Pretty embarassing. He was pushing him forward based on very little. WHich is exactly what MJ has given so far, starting with his continued choice of captain (though it must be said he doesnt have many other options).
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:01am | Report comment
Spiro Wilkinson is not all he seems. He had a good day in goal-kicking and defense.
However, he is fundamentally a kicking and non-creative fly-half, and that partly explains why the England backline were so ineffective. Wilkinson’s playmaking was its usual very low standard.
Don’t get confused: a kicking fly-half like Wilkinson and Steyn is not the same thing as a playmaking fly-half like Carter (who also, for that matter, fulfills the part of a kicking fly-half very well).
The other reason of course is the hopelessly untalented backs outside selected by Johnson (Not that there aren’t highly talented backs available: Matthew Tait, James Simpson-Daniel, Iain Balshaw, Lesley Vainikolo).
It was a better performance by Australia, admittedly against a monumentally abysmal England coached by someone with not the first clue what he’s doing. The positive elements were these:
-Wycliff Palu: when he is not knocking on he can give the Australian pack physical parity with any other, maybe even South Africa.
-Will Genia: more than simply his considerable ability his decision-making and game control gives Australia a crucial calmness that they have otherwise lacked.
-DIgby Ioane: a seriously dangerous strike runner.
Those three have led to a considerable improvement on the tri-nations performance. However Australia are still short in some areas on top players.
The two wings were anonymous.
The two second rows were average.
So Australia need two good wings and two good second rows.
If Gasnier were brought over to outside centre, Ioane and maybe Nasangayavi could be the wings.
If Mcmeniman were kept and Vickerman brought over, there would be two second rows.
That’s the solution
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:04am | Report comment
Kingplaymaker, I have asked you this before but you have never answered. As a self-confessed England fan I am intrigued to know where you’re from in England and what team you support. You don’t find that intrusive do you? I’m interested to know how wide the geographical spread is on The Roar.
Do you not think that Wilkinson displayed some good touches? Why do you think that Tait, Vainikolo, Simpson-Daniel or Balshaw deserve inclusion into the England squad?
True Tah said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:36am | Report comment
Kingplaymaker,
I take it you did not see Wilkinson’s chip gather and offload against the Wallabies, and his passing game, not to mention the amount of tackles the bloke was making, e.g. the 88kg JW picking up the 120kg Chisholm and driving him backwards. It was a joy to watch, especially after the fair of the Tri Nations…Wilkinson did a lot more “creative” things than Dan Carter did last week, obviously the flow of the games was differant, but Im looking forward to seeing him get back to where he was…IMO it would be great for the game if Carter and JW were both at the top of their game and faced off.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:56am | Report comment
True Tah Wilkinson was good in defense, but defense is not playmaking. His creative contribution was some good little kicks. But passing? Getting the backline moving? Creating holes in the defense for other backs to take up?
You’re certainly right that I didn’t see much of that, but then I never have from him. His strengths have always been a) Goal-kicking b) Defense c) Kicking out of hand. He has never been a creative fly-half, but that’s fine because it’s not what he’s meant to be.
Shahsan said | November 9th 2009 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
Gasnier at outside centre? Why? On what basis? In every game i have watched him play he has been found out defensively. Australia would be leaking tries. And he is not that good a distributor.
Robbo said | November 9th 2009 @ 1:50pm | Report comment
Shahsan – I say we ignore him. Anyone suggesting that Ratu Nasiganiyavi (or anyone without a Super cap) deserves a spot on the Wallaby XV is worth ignoring.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 1:53pm | Report comment
Robbo you buffoon I never said he deserved a Wallaby spot. I just said he was someone who might develop into a potential candidate by next year. Clearly the difference between those two totally different points is beyond you.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 1:55pm | Report comment
Shashan Gasnier is an unbelievable player in attack. I have been watching him regularly for Stade Francais and he is a true game-breaker. Defensively he’s generally fine too, with the odd slip-up, which will quickly stop in the next three months as he masters the game.
Shahsan said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:19pm | Report comment
Well, i hope so. Let’s see how he develops. He could be the first league back (non-winger) to make a genuine impact in rugby union. I hope he is , cos he was great to watch and very effective in league.
fox said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:14am | Report comment
A much needed win and there were a lot of positives, which Spiro has highlighted above. no need for repetition.
Frankly, at the risk of being negative, I can’t say I was all that impressed with many areas of play. The lineout is a given, but we know we are short second rowers in that area – and for all Horwill’s ability around the park, he is not an option at lineout time, which is the no. 1 skill required to fulfill that position. What has happened to Rocky at the front of the lineout? He used to command ball there.
As much as Cooper showed his attacking nous and brought a decent right boot to events, he is sadly lacking in guts and determination. He shows no willingness to make an effort at the breakdown. Twice I saw him shirk his responsibilities following Gits to a breakdown and opted to stand by while a turnover occurred. He was also run over in open field with perhaps the weakest “put my head down and shoulder somewhere and hope for the best” type tackle I have seen for a long time. That was an effort that belongs in the under 16 C’s. He’s no Campeses and so has no excuse for weak defense. He is also a continuous threat of being pinged for shoulder charges. Someone needs to work with him on a) tackling and b) hardening the hell up. He was just lucky to be marking up against another lightweight, 83kg inside centre in Shane Geraghty. Otherwise it is likely he would have been exposed. I am not sure why England did not flood that channel more often. That was a big mistake by England coach Johnson – perhaps he did not do his research and for that alone you would justify an argument for him being on watch as England coach.
The big bonuses were Ioane and Genia. Digby has justified the faith of many in these forums that he would take over from Mortlock and make the 13 jersey his own. He was, of course, the form Australian 13 in super rugby. He’s difficult to stop, but needs to work on his passing.
All up I give the performance 6.5/10.
Carry on.
PastHisBest said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:25am | Report comment
Not sure I agree with you re: Ioane fox. The centre position is a distribution one and he’s not the answer there for mine at the moment. I feel that with license, Ioane could have just as much impact on the wing, particularly as after hynes the Wallabies are mighty thin on the ground.
Having said this, do I have a better suggestion – no.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:15am | Report comment
KO if it calms you down Oxford.
Wilkinson had a good game as a kicking fly-half, but an average one as a playmaking fly-half. He is being selected as a kicking fly-half, the idea being that Geraghty will take over as first receiver and do the playmaking when the ball is to be run. All this is fine, I was just pointing out that Wilkinson did not have a good game as a playmaker.
Those four players I mentioned have serious attacking ability and could have threatened the Wallabies defense, whereas Monye, Cueto, Banahan and Hipkiss, having no talent, were unable to do anything.
If Geraghty ran the attacking plays, with those four players outside him, England would be more competitive.
Johnson’s selection in the forwards is less bad, and Haskell, Croft and Moody/Rees looks close to the ideal backrow. As an ex-forward he may have a better eye for forwards.
But I utterly disagree with his idea of good backline players.
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:19am | Report comment
I’m hardly being melodramatic asking such a simple question. Where in Oxford and what team do you support? If you’re not happy answering that then say so. I don’t want you to think I’m being intrusive.
What did Wilkinson do that was so average? How do you define his role as playmaker?
What way do those four players have to offer the side? Have you watched any/many of their games this season?
How can you be so scathing of Monye, Cueto and Hipkiss when you have noted that the players they rely on internally were not doing their job properly?
What is your definition of a good backline player? What is his idea of a good backline player? What is your perception of the role of Brian Smith?
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:23am | Report comment
KO I suggest you go away and grow up. My fault for replying to you I suppose.
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:26am | Report comment
Can you be civil please. I’m asking for your opinion. You have made some interesting statements and I asked you to define or expand upon them in an adult and calm manner. The above response is totally and completely unreasonable.
Viscount Crouchback said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:44am | Report comment
I thought Wilkinson was good, certainly better than one could reasonably expect after such a long period out. The real problem for England was the absence of a big ball carrier in the midfield. There was no one to punch holes and consequently no space. Geraghty had the right idea with some of his chip kicks, but his execution was sadly lacking.
I thought Monye’s positional coverage and kicking was poor, but then it was always going to be. Banahan is absolutely not a Test player. Jonno needs to change up the back three because Dan Carter’s tactical kicking will wreak havoc otherwise.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:50am | Report comment
Viscount of course, the back three and Hipkiss are utterly talentless.
Will Genia said after the match that Banahan was ‘eaten alive’.
What was the combined input of Hipkiss, Banahan, Cueto and Monye in attack..
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:55am | Report comment
Tindall is always missed when he is absent. You always get fans lamenting his inclusion but he allows England to play the way Brian Smith wants them to. Perhaps in hindsight it would have made sense to have played Hipkiss at 12 and use him to run at Cooper all day but then Geraghty deserved a run out. The first game was always going to be error-ridden so does Johnson allow the same players an opportunity to try and consolidate an 80 minute (as opposed to 40 minute) performance, or does he make some changes? Personally I would like to see Lawes, Haskell, Hodgson and Foden start. You, VC?
Viscount Crouchback said | November 9th 2009 @ 8:08am | Report comment
Agreed on Tindall. Erinle is probably the nearest fit but his hands – as we saw in the second half when he ruined a promising attack – aren’t wonderful. Geraghty certainly deserves another crack. I thought Louis Deacon did okay – agile enough in the lineout and workmanlike around the park but, let’s face it, he’s never going to be a superstar, so give Lawes a crack. Hodgson must play 9. Care has had about ten cracks at it now and he remains infuriatingly inept. Foden would be a better bet than Monye at 15, but I prefer a more reliable full-back in the Morgan mould. Alex Goode fits the bill perfectly, but I don’t think Jonno will consider another young player at this time. I’d prefer Haskell at 8 to the stodgy Crane, but I don’t see Hask having a long-term future there. Easter was sorely missed yesterday.
I think Johnson is doing reasonably well overall, but some of his selections – Care, Crane, Banahan – suggest that his eye for a player is somewhat lacking.
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 8:25am | Report comment
I agree with the changes you proffer – especially with a more reliable 15. Hopefully the Australian game will have served as an eye-opener to the coaching panel. Holding faith in a core group of players is vital but with so many absences Johnson needs to seize the moment given that so few of the squad will be long-term test players. He certainly seemed impressed with the replacements in his post-match analysis.
PastHisBest said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
I agree about Care VC. He is muscular and competitive, however his passing is woefully slow for an international halfback. Or any halfback for that matter.
Viscount Crouchback said | November 9th 2009 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
Indeed. Moreover, Care is remarkably stupid. I’ve watched Quins on numerous occasions and the chap does not have the slightest clue how to manage a game. No “smarts”. Johnson has been seduced by his pace, just like he’s been seduced by Banahan’s bulk. It’s too facile for words.
johnny-boy said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:15am | Report comment
Gee Giteau looks lethal with a bit of space. Gee he looks out of place at 10. A criminal waste of a brilliant talent. He’s lead in the Wallabies saddle at 10 and rocket fuel one out. Like previous tests the Wallabies kickoff chase and receipt is appalling. They are just not interested. No hunger or enthusiasm. I hate the cowards option of not contesting the lineout. The Boks intimidate by contesting everything, anywhere, anyhow, anytime. You dont put fear in the oppostion by standing still like a stunned mullet so you can supposedly repel the awesome rolling maul they are about to develop after being gifted lineout ball. Too clever by half. The Wallabies were able to repel the maul, even when they were contesting. Palu is coming along. With a bit more encouragement he might fire up to something awesome. Go Cliffy ! If the Wallabies ever get over having a foreigner as a coach and just do it for themselves and their country, you just know there is that bubbling irrepressible enthusiasm and confidence waiting to pop the champagne. If only. As others have said. if they could just resist the urge to try and do it all themselves, AAC excepted
. Also congrats to the Wallabies on some occassional offensive tackling. Congrats to England for actually passing the ball and catching it. Big improvement.
stillmissit said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:44am | Report comment
Johnny-boy ‘I hate the cowards option of not contesting the lineout.’ totally agree, I was pulling my wig out at the stupidity of it all. The other thing I hate about our lineout is the wandering up to the lineout late on our put in then run backwards then forwards, the lifters miss their timing and the whole thing goes balls up. I repeat what I have said elsewhere here, this is NOT a throw in problem. Both TPN and Moore are capable without being brilliant at this aspect.
This lineout is an indicator of us constantly looking for the easy option, like Robinson being the perennial pillar at the breakdown unless he is first there, when he will have a go at a turnover. All flash and dash with no hard work is what worries me about our team.
You are right though the penny could drop and the champagne come out. Interesting times.
PastHisBest said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:32am | Report comment
“Gee Giteau looks lethal with a bit of space”
Which he doesn’t get at 10 JB. But that’s a dog that just won’t fetch with these selectors.
Parisien said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:27am | Report comment
Kingplaymaker – I think Johnson has been better than his two predecessors, their last 6N was much better. Also, Wilkinson was very creative in the game, searching and directing play left, right, using chip kicks, short and long kicks, short and long passes. What more do you want!? He outplayed Giteau for starters.
re: Gasnier, I watch him here in Paris, he is ok, nothing more, still learning about rugby union. he mixes the good with the bad. Vickerman is deeply in his books, very happy studying I read in an interview, and hasn’t played top level rugby since 2007, so no point in pinning any hopes on his return while McMeniman chased the yen to Japan, and personally I never saw what people saw in him… Horwill and Chisolm did ok, and will get better in time.
I do agree with you about Palu, Ioane and Genia. Cooper too brought some spark.
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:06pm | Report comment
I am presuming that you’re not actually French, Parisien? If so what’s the story with you being in France – if you don’t mind me asking?
Parisien said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:37pm | Report comment
That sounds dangerously like a “pedigree” question Knives! But I’m happy to answer it. I was born in Australia, from Kiwi parents, Irish/Scots background on father’s side, English on the mother’s. I moved to France for the women, wine and song, and I love it here. Married to a French woman and soon to be French as well as Australian: I’m a true rugby mongrel (or citizen of the world in polite company).
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:27pm | Report comment
General interest. I’m a big fan of French rugby.
France: 15 Damien Traille, 14 Vincent Clerc, 13 Yann David, 12 Maxime Mermoz, 11 Cédric Heymans, 10 Francois Trinh-Duc, 9 Julien Dupuy, 8 Louis Picamoles, 7 Imanol Harinordoquy, 6 Thierry Dusautoir (c), 5 Romain Millo-Chluski, 4 Lionel Nallet, 3 Nicolas Mas, 2 William Servat, 1 Fabien Barcella.
Replacements: 16 Dimitri Szarzewski, 17 Sylvain Marconnet, 18 Sébastien Chabal, 19 Julien Bonnaire, 20 Morgan Parra, 21 David Marty, 22 Maxime Médard.
I’m underwhelmed.
Parisien said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:55pm | Report comment
I think it looks a good team but I’d prefer to see Medard at fullback, and Traille in the centres (perhaps in place of David). The pack looks good but I prefer Szarzewski to Servat. He’ll certainly bring impact and freshness coming from the bench, as will Chabal.
What team would you pick?
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 11:27pm | Report comment
Mostly the same except with Medard at 15 and Traille at 12. I would have seriously considered Marty at 13 too. He’s played well this season whereas I haven’t been bowled over by David. I remember when he was meant to be the next big thing but he seems to have stalled somewhat. I see him as the French Lloyd Johansson: big and durable. I’m worried that the lineup is too conservative. France has a very good recent record against SA. When they have beaten SA they did it with a robust forward pack and guile in the backline. Picking Traille’s big boot and David at 13 strikes me as an effort to mirror SA. Bernard Laporte used to have a SH complex and I would hope that Lievremont would have the courage to put SA to one side for a moment and pick players to worry them, not players to neutralize them. Pro-active as opposed to reactive, if you see what I mean? Perhaps this side has the necessary tactical blend? We shall see.
At least the bench has a real zip to it. Every player should be able to impact positively upon the match. It’s a shame that Ouedraogo is injured but Picamoles has been in good form and I think the back row has a nice blend to it. I’m less enamoured with Millo-Chluski at 5, but Chabal should provide relief if necessary.
Parisien said | November 9th 2009 @ 11:53pm | Report comment
Marty has looked good this season in Top14 but I feel he has never really delivered at test level, despite a great debut a few years back. Lots of handling errors at test level…This is another chance to prove the doubters wrong I guess.
Ouedrago is a big miss, he has improved so much in a year. Millo-Chluski is Lievremont’s type of forward I think, no nonsense, unglamourous, not particularly noticeable but works hard in tight and a good scrummer (almost the opposite of Chabal who has other qualities).
I think this team could go very well, should be a good game! The French may cause an upset.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:34am | Report comment
Parisien Giteau didn’t have a great game, but I’m afraid I can’t agree Wilkinson was creative. In as much as he was creative at all, it simply involved little kicks.
Parisien I’ve seen Gasnier too: he’s been moved around by Stade and rarely given the ball, however, his attack has been at times simply amazing. This kind of ability to change a match and make breaks when there is nothing on is exactly what the Wallabies need.
Whether they can get Vickerman back is I think down to whether O’Neill is willing to pay him enough, as that issue was why he left in the first place. The lure of a last world cup and more money could be too great.
Mcmeniman is a slightly more complicated case. Firstly, he would certainly stay if the ARU offered him more money: like Vickerman, that’s why he left. He has huge talent, but he hasn’t successfully made the transition to international level, somewhat like Palu. I think though that this is where Deans ‘ management ability should come in. He appears to be turning Palu, a player who for a long time couldn’t adjust to the level above, into a real asset, and I believe he could well do the same with Mcmeniman.
stillmissit said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:47am | Report comment
Kingy – Vickerman left because he wanted to do his masters (I think) at one of the best Universities in the world. The money was not the problem. I think the 3 shoulder reconstructions would have made him think a bit.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:52am | Report comment
stillmissit as far as I remember it was because he felt under-valued and underpaid by the ARU..
stillmissit said | November 9th 2009 @ 8:36am | Report comment
Might have been the media spin on it but from my information that is not true. He enjoyed his position in Australian rugby and felt he was appreciated by the ARU and the supporters.
There could have been some issues beneath the surface but like most pro sports people they keep their thoughts to themselves or else they are in the Tele the next day as a fact.
Tim said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
Regardless of why he left why would you look to a 30 year old who hasn’t played internationally in 2 years as your saviour.
We need to look at the talent we have and why they aren’t performing. If it can be fixed then we do it, otherwise we look to bring younger talent through.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:20am | Report comment
There’s no younger talent in that position, and Vickerman is the only world-class Australian lock.
PastHisBest said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:37am | Report comment
Agreed.
Nicol'arse said | November 9th 2009 @ 8:17pm | Report comment
Vickerman WAS great but he’s out of the picture. Move on. We are SERIOUSLY lacking in the locks department.
Horwill is a passenger. And IMO, Chisolm is not an international standard lock.
But who else is there?? Caldwell was good for the Tahs but he’s a tad small. I hear about Kimlin… but I haven’t seen enough of him to comment. Anyone else??
AngryAnt said | November 9th 2009 @ 11:39am | Report comment
If money was so important to Vickerman why did he not sign for a club in Uk, France or Japan? Instead he went to Uni in England and has been playing for nothing.
Rickety Knees said | November 9th 2009 @ 11:47am | Report comment
He did not feel valued … this does not necessarily translate into money but a sense of value
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
Angryant look at Rickety’s answer. It was a terrible example of player management from O’Neill.
AndyS said | November 9th 2009 @ 6:32pm | Report comment
Not sure I’d agree RK – if he didn’t feel valued, I would have expected that the logical response would have to go somewhere he did feel valued to prove a point (a la Elsom perhaps?). You don’t respond to a not-enough-money situation by giving up all the money. So if you are right and he quit because he felt slighted, it would seem very petulant in the “If rugby doesn’t want me, I don’t want rugby” style. In that case I wouldn’t be expecting him back and it is likely a permanent retirement.
stillmissit said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:01pm | Report comment
Guys I don’t believe any of this and I am sure that if he wanted to, he could come back on any terms he chose. He was the players rep on the NSWRU board and was very well thought of and was involved in other organisations around rugby. To say that O’Neil and the ARU didn’t value him is pure speculation. He was and remains one of the great Wallaby forwards.
He strikes me as a genuine guy but you can never say never, so who knows.
My conspiracy theory would be that he had an issue with guys like Tuquiri and Giteau getting a million a year and guys like him not getting that kind of money but contributing just as much if not more in the case of Tuquiri. Now I have no knowledge for this piece of fiction but it carries as much weight as anything else about him.
Parisien said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:38am | Report comment
interesting thoughts, but we may never get to know…
Viscount Crouchback said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:39am | Report comment
You offer a peculiar take on the game, Spiro. I thought the Test was far from “terrific”; absorbing, yes, but really rather low on quality.
I re-watched the second half earlier and England’s performance wasn’t quite as bad as it seemed at the time. The game was wholly in the balance until Ashley-Cooper’s try. Indeed, if anything, I thought that England became a little too ambitious – frantic might be a more appropriate term – when they went 11-9 down. Instead of kicking for territory and playing for a penalty or drop goal (as Ireland or the Boks would have done), they instead put width on the game and went for the try. It was high risk stuff and didn’t quite pay off. I thought Jonno’s analysis of the game was spot on, and certainly much, much closer to the truth than the hysterical rantings of Fleet Street.
I was slightly disappointed in Australia. They are still less than the sum of their parts. A more experienced England team would have put them to the sword, and I’m fairly confident that Ireland (certainly) and Wales (probably) will do just that.
PastHisBest said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:40am | Report comment
“They are still less than the sum of their parts”
An impossibility I would say VC, you are what you are. Less than their potential certainly.
Viscount Crouchback said | November 9th 2009 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
It’s a well known aphorism.
PastHisBest said | November 9th 2009 @ 3:10pm | Report comment
No, greater than the sum of their parts is what you are looking for. Are you saying that they play worse as a team than they are as individuals? That is why I said it was an impossibility.
AndyS said | November 9th 2009 @ 6:36pm | Report comment
Play worse as a team than as individuals – so, a committee then?
Viscount Crouchback said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:37am | Report comment
Think about what you are writing. How is it possible to be greater than the sum of their parts (as you claim) but not less than the sum of their parts? The answer is that neither is possible. It is merely an aphorism, not to be taken literally, and I have no idea why we are clogging up the thread with this.
Bay35Pablo said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:45am | Report comment
You can only play as well as your opposition let you. Early on England had heaps of possession, and were up with penalty goals. We looked frazzled, and going nowhere. I thought, “Uh oh, we’d better dig ourselves out of this.” Lineouts were poor, and the 1st 2 throws from Moore were to 4 and lost. The 2nd one I was yelling at the TV about, because I thought” You’re getting murdered. Forget quality ball, just get ball and throw to 2 you peanut!!!’ May not have been his call.
AAC has a few kicks that were headless. The commentators were raising the issue of Cooper hanging back, not supporting Giteau, but I think he was waiting for the pop ball that never came. Similarly, Cooper seemed to try to offload when sometimes he should have just gone to ground and recycled. Genia and Giteau were sniping, and making the forwards wary. Gits running so much may or may not have been a plan to create this doubt in their mind, given his tendency to do this previously. He just had more support against a weaker opponent this time. At one stage Genia regathered and ran into the English defence with no support leading to a turnover, when he should have spun it wide, albeit losing yards but ensuring it was retained.
As the game progressed England faded and we got more ball and look more threatening with every phase.
At the risk of being a narky bugger, I am not sure we can do that against Ireland or Wales. However, it was a great relief to see some decent rugby. The forwards may have been poor at times in the lineout, but showed a lot more ticker. The back 3 were quiet, but the midfield made up for it.
So, talk to me again after Ireland ….
PastHisBest said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:42am | Report comment
Bay, I’m settling for winning rugby, decent rugby can come down the track.
Bay35Pablo said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:46am | Report comment
Oh, and when Cooper was first receiver, and Gits inside centre, we looked bloody good. Gits is an inside centre, the boy should just get over that fact and get one with it.
Nicol'arse said | November 9th 2009 @ 8:24pm | Report comment
Here bloody HERE to that Pabs!
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:47am | Report comment
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:47am | Report comment
Parisien out of those four players I mentioned, they are most likely to be available in this order:
1) Nasingayavi. Already there.
2) Gasnier. Says he wants to play for the Wallabies, Mckenzie at Queensland.
3) Vickerman. Everyone goes on about he has to come back and he is the single player who would make the most difference.
4) Mcmeniman. Would require a reversal of ARU policy towards him.
We’ll see I suppose. It’s also worth thinking that other new players may be in the mix by 2011.
Darwin hammer said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
KPM – you continue to gloss over one massive factor when mentioning Mcmeniman – he’s brittle, his body was unable to stand up to 1 full season of either S12 / 14 … I doubt he even completed 1 end of year tour …. he’s in Japan for 1 reason and 1 reason only – it’s a level at which he can prolong his career without forever being on the physio’s couch … throw in he’s not really a second rower anyway and he’s certainly not the Aussies answer to their 2nd row problems …
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
Darwin his injuries are a big problem, it’s true, though I think it’s money he left for rather than to prolong his career.
However, despite the bad injury record, I think he does have serious ability. Add his serious abillity to Vickerman, Palu, Pocock, Smith, Robinson, Moore, Polota-Nau, Moore, Alexander, and Australia might have a top notch pack.
stillmissit said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:48am | Report comment
Bay35Pablo – you can lead the ego to water but you cant stop it from dying of thirst!
Paley said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:53am | Report comment
“90,000 spectators crowded into the ground”
Wow – 8,000 more than the ground can hold.
Spook said | November 9th 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment
Spiro, Wilko’s defense on his left shoulder has been suspect ever since his injuries post 03. The Wallabies tried this route but found out that he’s back to full fitness.
rich1612 said | November 9th 2009 @ 8:34am | Report comment
Is Gits being selected as a specialist goal kicker?
I don’t believe this is so just now but his recent performances suggest that he might be dropped to the bench if it wasn’t for his goal kicking.
Just looking at his contributions over the past year Gits seems to be pretty one dimensional.
Attack – generally speaking he takes the ball from the half back runs to the line steps and get tackled.
Defense, takes the ball very deep takes an age to get the ball to his only kicking foot and then kicks a relatively short (especially when it’s charged down) very low flying clearing kick.
Maybe he needs a season with the Brumbies, seems his stint at the Force hasn’t developed his rugby brain, I would have thought by now his passing and kicking game would have developed much further.
hayden said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:41am | Report comment
Agreed. Giteau has talent, but I can’t really understand what all the fuss is about.
Dean Pantio said | November 9th 2009 @ 8:50am | Report comment
I wouldn’t be crowing that my team was the least crap in a contest. I certainly wouldn’t be calling that a terrific test. Genuine standouts for the English are easy to list, there were only two: Wilkinson and Moody. Standouts for the Wallabies; Elsom, Genia and Ioane. Cooper wasn’t as fragile as I expected him to be. Digby should be a winger so Two-Dads can play in his preferred position, especially now that Mortlock’s tour is over and the likelihood that so is his international service. Ioane to partner Hynes on the wings.
On that form, although good for morale and self belief getting another win under the belt, Ireland and Wales will present much stiffer competition and won’t be anywhere near as one dimensional (and bad at that) as the English were.
Australia need to improve drastically, because if by some miracle they were to win their remaining tests playing like they are, it would make a mockery of the term Grand Slam and the achievements of 1984.
Jameswm said | November 9th 2009 @ 8:59am | Report comment
Quickly on Wilkinson. I thought he had a very good game. His passing is good but at the same time you can see he is not the instinctive playmaker type of 5/8. With him the passing’s more straight out of the text book.
I hope a few get off Palu’s back now. He was tremendous.
Moore’s early throwing was as bad as anything TPN’s dished up lately, so can we start putting the whole “TPN’s throwing is poor” theory to bed? TPN is better all round but if they’re rotating the two over the 5 tests, I can live with that.
Genia has had enough written about him.
Early on Gits was even wider than 12 – about 13 – but a couple of times he got it in space and his first option was to grubber up the touchline. Ioane didn’t get decent ball the whole match – even when he made the break and lost it over the line he did it with nothing on.
Rocky butchered a try by not passing to an unmarked Hynes – this would not have happened to the ABs.
A couple of poor kicks from AAC, a couple of good ones from Cooper.
Chisholm had one of his better games and Robinson was tremendous again. Was someone above criticising Robinson for being a pillar and not contesting at the breakdown? He wins as much turnover ball as our 7s!
It took us a while to get the ball but when we did we looked dangerous. We ran straighter from more depth, but we still hog it too much I’m afraid.
stillmissit said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:59am | Report comment
Hi James – I was the one criticising Robinson, your comment:
‘Robinson was tremendous again. Was someone above criticising Robinson for being a pillar and not contesting at the breakdown?’ this is the main reason we have crap props in Australian rugby. We love to watch them run (is this a league thing?) and do other things than what a prop should do.
Robinson is a failure in my book because his first option if the ruck or maul is formed is to take up a soft pillar/post position or stand in the D rather attack the ruck or better still counter ruck. This leaves the 2 guys in the ruck exposed to a penalty or a turnover.
He does try for a penalty for not releasing or win the ball if he is there first. Now this is fine but a ball winning prop when we are getting the shit beaten out of us in the rucks by the AB/SA’s is a failure in my book. Like many Australian props he loves to have a run which is also fine if he has done the HARD WORK which he doesn’t do. He would not run so fast if he was doing the work we need him to do.
PLEASE let’s not fall into the ‘Dunning’ trap about our props and set the bar where it should not be set. I don’t want our props as some glamour boys in the back line who get all the accolades whilst the opposition is belting the life out of us in the ruck.
Yes I know he is good in the scrum.
PastHisBest said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
SMI – I had another look at the game this morning and you’re right. It was not something I had noticed before. Perhaps he is a frustrated loosie??
stillmissit said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:11am | Report comment
Great pasthisbest – that makes 2 of us, the rest of the Wallaby supporters think Robinson is the best player in the team and obviously world class.
CraigB said | November 9th 2009 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
I think you’ll find that if he is taking up the pillar position in defense that it is a coaching strategy rather than a player weakness. I re-watched the game and saw him in the middle of the hard work quite a few times. The sheer number of phases in the modern game mean you simply cannot get to everyone on time. If you have every player attack every ruck regardless you are going to leave holes. There ar time when you accept the ball is gone and work on getting it next time.
Robinson is a great player and is world class. I am yet to see a prop get one over him. If he is a afailure in your book then I suggest you learn to read because you are wrong.
PastHisBest said | November 9th 2009 @ 3:14pm | Report comment
If I could be so bold as to speak on SMI’s behalf, I believe he is saying that Robinson is a failure in one aspect of his play – albeit what he and I consider to one of the most important.
BTW, ‘great’ is an adjective to often bandied about.
AngryAnt said | November 9th 2009 @ 11:57am | Report comment
stillmissit, I have to disagree. I think you are being a little unfair on Robinson. I will keep a closer eye on where he stands at rucks, but for mine if we are defending and the ball is lost he is right not to over commit. Be mindful of any opportunity to counter ruck, but do not unnecessarily commit to a breakdown shortening the defensive line.
Also in defense I think that Robinson was also close to topping the tackling count for the pigs. He made a huge number of tackles, both around the rucks for pick and drives and in more open play.
He again showed he is one of the best scrummaging loseheads going around. The Wallabies are no longer the easy beats at scrum time, which is good. I would however, argue that this lineout lifting could improve. Not sure if it was timing, or a height thing but our lifting at the front, both on our ball and the oppositions needs to be much more effective. Higher and faster.
When the Wallabies are attacking I believe that Robinson has been given a secondary role by the coach. Like all forwards his first job is to win the ball and I believe that he does this. However, being a prop he is more often than not not going to be the first 1, 2 or 3 to the breakdown, expecially if we play a wider game. I believe is second job is to cover halfback. If the halfback is trapped in the ruck/maul Robinson goes to half. It happens too often to be a mistake. His passing is excellent as well. This is s role that George Smith used to fill.
I am happy to be correct and as an old prop maybe I am being overly generous, but I believe he was close to the best on ground again the other night and has consistently been the whole season.
stillmissit said | November 9th 2009 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
Past HIs Best – you are correct in your statement. My fundamental thing is to be in a situation to win all games regardless of there entertainment value, this presupposes that you have a great pack, not just a World Class scrummaging prop and a couple of other forwards but a backbone of a team of winners. Not looking like a new wide screen TV but a V8 engine.
After we are winning regularly then the entertainment will begin.
Bulldog said | November 9th 2009 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
“Chisholm had one of his better games” – geez that is not saying much. Look like Tarzan play like Jan is my Chisholm motto. Actually both the second rowers were rubbish. Given we have been blooding new guys recently I would like to see some of the less known guys get a go over the current two, and by that I do not mean Mumm who also goes missing regularly.. Bring Back Sharpe.
Terry Kidd said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:03am | Report comment
Guys I agree with Bay35Pablo …. he has hit the nail on the head. Two ACC kicks in the first 20 minutes were pointless …. if he is to play 15 then he must be banned from kicking anywhere.
Giteau did not display vision in attack when he played at 10 …. too often he took the wrong option by running at JW close to the line when we would have been better served by taking it wider and having Ione and ACC ask questions of the defence.
I think the line out is creating its own problems by trying to be too cute. The throwing was ok, the problem lies in the positioning of the jumpers and lifters, there is too much jockeying around. Keep it simple, make the call on the way to the line out, line up where you intend to end up, throw and secure the ball, throw to 2 all the time if necessary …. and for God’s sake put Chisholm at 2 for every defensive line out and jump and contest every throw …. make the thrower toss it over you.
There were still too many wrong options and too much dumb play (Giteau and ACC) and next week against Ireland Cooper must play 10 the whole match and Palu must play at least 70 minutes. Smith must go back to the bench …. he had a very forgettable game.
Frank O'Keeffe said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:05am | Report comment
I loved the game too and was shocked by all the comments made by people that it was a bad game. I thought it was very entertaining – more entertaining than Wales v New Zealand (bloody referee) – and a nice step forward for the Wallabies. Anytime the Wallabies win there tends to be a hyperbole that things in the team are going well now. Let’s not do that! The Wallabies need to take this one Test at a time.
A few thoughts:
* When I saw a few aimless kicks from Giteau and Ashley-Cooper in the first 10 minutes I thought, “Here we go, another Test lost where the Wallabies kick the ball down the opposition throat.” The thing was, England weren’t even kicking that good, it’s as if they knew that if you give the Wallabies the ball they’ll squander the possession with a bad kick. I saw the penalties and the difference in kicking and thought the Wallabies would lose on penalties.
* Jonny Wilkinson is the best defensive flyhalf ever. No question. His kicking from hand was good, I didn’t see anything special in his running game as Spiro did, but his tackling was amazing. Unquestionably it was the best part of his game. It was Giteau being Giteau and being too much of an individualist, and Jonny just belting him everytime he tried it. Wilkinson is in such a different class to Giteau.
* I love Quade Cooper’s long pass.
* The second half was one of the more tense halves of rugby I’ve seen this year. Australia dominated, but didn’t put points on the board. I was thinking for a second that England would steal it as soon as they got some field position. The Wallabies maybe had 2-3 oppotunities that should have been taken – Elson not passing to Hynes, Ioane spilling the ball before the line etc. To me the game was never won until the 80th minute.
* By far the most important thing in the game was Australia playing better IN THE SECOND HALF. That’s the first time I’ve seen them do that this year. The second best part of Australia’s game was the fact they defended well. England haven’t gotten any credit yet for somewhat stretching the Wallabies. There was a noted improvement in their ball skills in that Test.
* A lot of people said Ashley-Cooper’s try was due to bad defence. Maybe it was, but I’ve seen Ashley-Cooper do that a lot. He has tremendous leg-drive in the tackle. He’s gutsy and committed. I love that part of his game. Really if there was a soft try it was that first one Genia scored.
* Will Genia was amazing. He backed up last week’s good performance in Tokyo with a great performance this week. Easily the best Aussie player on the park. But let’s not build him up too much and say he’s the next Gregan. Let’s just let him play his rugby and watch him develope.
Anyway it was an exciting game. Neither side are as good as South Africa of course, but both played well for where they’re at. Australia improved in a few areas such as defence and effort. They still need to work in a few areas. There’s still to many players in the backline going for glory, especially Giteau, and Australia were beaten at the breakdow in the first half by not committing enough players to the breakdown. But it was a teency step forward for the side.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:18am | Report comment
Jameswm if only Palu would stop knocking on he could be wonderful: what’s even more impressive than his physical presence this week was the previous week against the All Blacks who were a much tougher proposition, but still he managed to match up to them.
In terms of hogging near the line, this was I think due to fear of taking the risks which would have secured tries, due to a lack of confidence which will hopefully come soon.
sportym said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:19am | Report comment
I was at the game on Sat, A terrific test? Please what game were you watching? We were just lucky that the english team that turned up was far from their first choice, and it really showed, the only person holding it together for them was wilko. The rest of the english backline were all over the place. The wallabies just did not look good, I really hope it does not go to thier heads cause the real test are coming.
I was having a few drinks before the game and went to check out the field, Wilko was out there practicing, he put the ball on the tryline abut 5 meters from the post, I was wondering what he was doing, he lined up to kick it, i kinda chucked there was no way he was going to get that, he came around kicked it, the ball hit the outer post and went in…..my jaw hit the floor.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
sportym is wasn’t far from their first choice. Especially in the backs. Flutey and TIndall are the only first-choice players missing, and the latter is terrible, even worse that Hipkiss if that’s possible.
Colin N said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:32am | Report comment
Sheridan, Mears, Vickery, Shaw, Easter, Ellis, Flutey, Tindall, Monye on the wing and Armitage all first choice, missing. It’s quite a lot and if you consider Flood’s form for England as well. It’s not also who’s missing, but the new players having to adapt to a specific pattern of play, in a short space of time.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
Colin Sheridan, Shaw and Flutey would have made a positive difference, the rest wouldn’t. Mears is at best equal to Hartley, Easter is worse than Haskell, Ellis worse than Hodgson, Vickery worse than most props, Flood worse than Geraghty, Monye and Armitage average. I think the new players had the whole summer to adapt to the patterns of play, twice against Argentina and once against the Barbarians.
Colin N said | November 9th 2009 @ 11:22am | Report comment
“Colin Sheridan, Shaw and Flutey would have made a positive difference, the rest wouldn’t.”
It’s not really the point. The problem with the Argentina tests is that there was no Geraghty and Goode was at fly-half, which means the style of play was completely different to what they played against Australia.
England had a settled team in the six nations and towards the end, the understanding that had built up showed.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
Colin on the other hand Australia are in disarray after a terrible season.
Plus if England have lost some players, in the last year Australia have lost Barnes, Mortlock, Tuqiri, Tahu, Mcmeniman and Vickerman!
Besides, even losing players would not account for such a nightmarish performance as that. It was truly staggering.
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:16pm | Report comment
McMeniman and Vickerman have been absent for a lengthy period. That’s like saying that England lost Corry. Tahu was never a regular for Australia, and Tuqiri has been absent all season. Of those 4 players with only 2 being regulars the side has had 10 tests this season without them. The same applies to Mortlock.England has had one test with a shadow team being missing. Do you not comprehend the difference? I could say what you have said and claim that Australia has had the whole summer without those players – as you did with regard to the missing English players. You constantly contradict yourself.
Viscount Crouchback said | November 9th 2009 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
This is rather ignorant. Haskell is not a Number 8 – to suggest that he’s “better” than Easter is ridiculous. I thought Easter’s ball carrying and quick hands were sorely missed.
You also miss the point about Armitage. It’s not that he’s outstandingly good – he’s pretty good, but no Serge Blanco – but rather that England were forced to play Monye out of position. Unsurprisingly, Monye looked useless at 15.
I think Johnson’s point about game time is a fair one. The southern hemisphere set-up is absolutely perfect for the southern nations: they essentially play all their games in one block, which permits them to build week after week after week. It’s almost like a club scenario. The northern nations, in contrast, play their games in dribs and drabs and consequently never really get to develop any synergy.
Frankly, the southern nations should beat the northern nations 9 times out of 10 because, outside World Cups, the playing field is loaded in their favour. If the RFU and WRU and IRFU and FFR are serious about competing at international level then they need to radically overhaul their calendar.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 1:50pm | Report comment
Viscount Easter’s ball-carrying is snail-paced. Haskell played number 8 when he came on yesterday, and so was a direct swap for Easter. He played considerably better than Easter ever has: can you imagine Easter making that break?
Viscount I think Armitage, apart from his excellent catching of the ball, is totally worthless. A dire ball-runner and all over the place with the boot.
Johnson’s players should be fresh and rested while Australia’s after a huge season and a long series of exhausting matches against the top two teams in the world, including the All Blacks last week, should be worn out and for the taking.
Look at this quote from a paper today: ‘Afterwards, Johnson trotted out the hoary old line about people playing their first game together against a team toughened and unified by recent Tri-Nations activity. Of course, when the boot is on the other foot – when England head south every June and find themselves splattered all over Australia, New Zealand or South Africa – the explanation is rather different. It’s called having it both ways, and it is beginning to stick in the craw.’
By the way that was an absolutely horrendous performance by England. The total contempt the Wallabies rightly showed this pathetic side can be seen from the following post-match quotes:
Robbie Deans ‘I didn’t feel we were ever really stretched’.
Rocky Elsom, when asked about the large number of penalties awarded against him in the first 30 minutes: ‘As we never felt England were going to score, we didn’t feel the need to do anything special at the tackle area that might give us an advantage. We felt able to pull away from it a little, to pull back’.
How awful.
Viscount Crouchback said | November 9th 2009 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
Easter isn’t the quickest, true, but he’s so hard to knock down and his ball handling is terrific. Haskell did come on at 8, but he doesn’t like playing there and, long-term, he won’t succeed there because he doesn’t have the hands or the tactical nous. He’s a classic 6 – big, strong and uncomplicated. That said, I would prefer Haskell at 8 to Crane, since the latter’s stodgy performance really hurt England on Saturday.
I disagree about Armitage. He has displayed a lovely ability to join the line at pace – see his tries against Wales and France in the Six Nations last year.
As for the schedule: the issue isn’t freshness so much as team cohesion. How often do we hear that Australia and New Zealand are slow starters each June? Quite often. And yet England are effectively always starting. Three games, then three months off. Another five games, then three months off Then two games and five months off. It’s no way to build a team.
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:14pm | Report comment
You’re not English are you, kingplaymaker?
Robbie Deans also said this:
“We’ve been in a hard Test match there. England’s work rate around the loose ball was exceptional and that was tough work”
“England are blooding a lot of new faces out there and until you’ve let players take the big steps in Test rugby you’ll never know just how good they are, so I applaud that”
You can’t just cherry pick random quotes, especially quotes that contradict what you say at a later stage. A lot of what you say fails to make any point whatsoever, but by using such a ridiculously weak media quote from Stephen Jones (I’m guessing) I really think somebody needs to tell you to use your inside voice before you use your typing voice. When France toured NZ this season, for example, a lot of their players had basically played a 48 week season. The current Australian players have played 13 S14 games (at a maximum), 6 3N games, 3 other test games and perhaps the odd club game. You see?
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:19pm | Report comment
The point isn’t whether you think the players would have made a difference, kingplaymaker. That is totally irrelevant, the point is that Sheridan, Mears, Vickery, Shaw, Ellis, Flutey, Tindall and D. Armitage were all starting players, with Flood and White being regular bench players. 10 players from 22 is quite a number. To suggest their absence is not damaging suggests an absence of understanding of contemporary rugby union. From the Argentina line ups England had a new 8, 10, 12 and 15. You fail to mention this.
Darwin hammer said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:33am | Report comment
How long before the calls start form the Australian press and public that Genia is world class, destined to be the the best halfback in the world and is Farr Jones and Gregan all rolled into 1
Harry said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:02am | Report comment
Read today’s press … unfortuantely the over-hyping’s already started DH and that idiot Growden is burbling on about a grand slam. I do wish they’d shut it for once but our press can’t help themselves.
stillmissit said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:08am | Report comment
How close you are to the action Darwin you must be plugged in; here it starts, the downfall of Will Genia.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,26321295-23217,00.html?from=public_rss
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
VC I disagree about Easter’s hands, they strike me as no better than Haskell’s. The difference between the two is that Haskell is a dynamic, powerful runner, whereas Easter is a lumbering figure who makes little ground and does little else.
Anyone, of course, is better than Crane.
I have watched Armitage very closely. For every break he makes, there are scores of times when he is stopped dead in his tracks.
I saw him bring the ball back again and again and again last year, and alsmot invariably it was like seeing someone run into a wall.
I don’t think cohesion is a problem. England have had unbelievable quantities of preparation time.
The problem is the vast incompetence of Martin Johnson.
Here’s a pair of articles I read describing accurately what happened:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/international/johnson-damned-by-englands-lack-of-bite-1817312.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/international/johnson-damned-by-englands-lack-of-bite-1817312.html
Viscount Crouchback said | November 9th 2009 @ 2:23pm | Report comment
We’ll have to disagree about Easter. I think his hands are one of the best things about him. Interesting observations on Armitage – I’ve not noticed that, but I have observed that his positional awareness at full-back isn’t always great. England have had the prep time but they haven’t had the game time. All the training in the world is fine and dandy but teams only real grow by playing matches together. One simply cannot overlook the glaring lack of experience and cohesion in key areas of the England team – 8, 9, 12, 13. I firmly believe that England will improve with games and that a fellow like Geraghty can mirror the radical improvement of Flutey last season. The press reaction to the defeat has been predictably over-the-top but t’was ever thus.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
VC the press reaction I think was far too soft. This is the worst English team ever.
‘One simply cannot overlook the glaring lack of experience and cohesion in key areas of the England team’
Same with Australia. Care has far more international experience than Genia for example.
Johnson is a terrible selector, leaving out players with real talent like Simpson-Daniel, Tait, Cipriani, while choosing hopeless backs like the ones who played on saturday. He is an awful man-manager, having failed to work with Cipriani, the golden talent of the current generation. He is incompetent when it comes to tactical acumen.
HE is the problem.
Easter has always been average as far as I can see.
Armitage is simply useless in attack.
Geraghty does have ability however: how bizarre that Johnson chose him!
VC between you and me the players with real attacking ability in the backline in England at the moment are: Cipriani, Geraghty, Lamb, Hape, Tait, Balshaw, Vainikolo, Simpson-Daniel, Ashton.
Some of those are not ready to play for England and have other complications, but they are the ones with real talent. Only one of them is in the current squad.
PastHisBest said | November 9th 2009 @ 3:20pm | Report comment
“This is the worst English team ever”
Short memory KPM…
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
Past no my memory’s not that short. Other bad team’s had potential, this one has none.
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:26pm | Report comment
No. He’s right. Us English fans had a great time with Andy Robinson and Brian Ashton on board.
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:25pm | Report comment
‘Geraghty does have ability however: how bizarre that Johnson chose him!’
Why is it bizarre? On a previous thread you demanded that Johnson chose young and exciting players like Geraghty, and yet now the selection of a form player is bizarre?
‘Armitage is simply useless in attack.’
What does this even mean?
How do you know that Johnson hasn’t ‘man-managed’ Cipriani?
How much have you seen of Tait, Vainikolo and Simpson-Daniel this year? That is a hugely signficant question.
‘Same with Australia. Care has far more international experience than Genia for example.’
No he doesn’t.
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:23pm | Report comment
‘ ‘Geraghty does have ability however: how bizarre that Johnson chose him!’
Why is it bizarre? On a previous thread you demanded that Johnson chose young and exciting players like Geraghty, and yet now the selection of a form player is bizarre?’
That was meant to be sarcastic in response to the initial sarcasm, btw. Sarcasm is a low form of wit. My bad.
sam a said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
Did any other red-blooded attacking rugby fans turn off in disgust when, once again, the poms turned to the only thing they know how to do and go for a drop goal inside of 3 minutes? They may as well save themselves a few quid and not bother printing jerseys 11-15 for their next few games. Boring, unskillful, predictable.
I would’ve loved to watch the whole game, but that one moment made me give up and wait for the replay.
That said, the 18 glasses of red at the wedding I’d just got home from may’ve had a helping hand in convincing me it was bedtime…
PastHisBest said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:55am | Report comment
I think you had a moment of coherent thinking with that last statement sam.
PastHisBest said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Too late DH…and I heard he could play anywhere in the backline, probably our best loose forward and at a pinch pop into tighthead. Now I’m as happy as anyone that he’s playing well but one swallow does not make an autumn…or a porn film…
pothale said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:54am | Report comment
No sam, you were the only one who turned off.
Don’t watch the replay either, you’ll only upset yourself.
Harry said | November 9th 2009 @ 9:58am | Report comment
Much is made of the Cooper/Ioane combination but I thought the real success was Cooper and Gits sharing the playmaking role, and brining the synergistic benefit of allowing Gits to play wider from the Cooper long pass, and the left and right foot kicking options. For all those bagging his defence, I thought Quade has clearly improved and worked hard on getting his technique right. He wasn’t a liability and it aint easy having these 100 Kg’s blokes running at you all day.
Surely now its clear that AAC has to stay at 15. Not convinced by Mitchell or Hynes … both are poor in defence and don’t seem to be able to beat a man.
I never thought I’d say this but serious consideration has to be given to starting Pocock and benching George… although I think in George’s case he was very nervous about giving away penalties in his own half last week at the breakdown, watch the tape carefully and he holds himself back over the ball a few times, I’m sure for fear of getting pinged.
Clearly we are poor in the second row, particuarly at lineout but we have NO alternative on this tour at least, so have to be clever with shorter lineouts and using Elsom more as a jumper. And why do we consistently surrender possession at the kickoffs? More work needed on the training field for both lineouts and restarts.
Will need improvement to beat the Irish but we are not without a chance.
stillmissit said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:19am | Report comment
Harry good post but maybe Smith holding back at the breakdown in our half with THAT ref and Johnny Wilkinson might be the reason we won the game. I would prefer that he goes in hard all the time, but the first 30mins of that match were quite weird 76% to 24% possession to the Poms and all the refs decisions.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment
Spot on Harry, second row and wings are the problems.
With Giteau, Barnes, Cooper, O’Connor, Mortlock, Beale, Ioane, the centres are fine.
Harry said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:15am | Report comment
I know Turner is off the boil at the moment but I believe he is a superior option to both Hynes and Mitchell in the long run. I have seen Turner produce some great breaks and tries at S14 level that the other 2 haven’t. Mitchell’s defence is a real worry and Hynes is flaky under the high ball.
CraigB said | November 9th 2009 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
Hynes is flaky under the high ball – he is the best of all oz wingers under the high ball. That is one reason he is selected.
Harry said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:07pm | Report comment
Watch him against SA in the tests this year CraigB, and when the ball went to his wing on Saturday. Please identify those times when he has been good.
exile said | November 9th 2009 @ 11:19am | Report comment
The real problem is full-back. AAC is very ggod player but that is not his best position. Get a regular solid 15 and release AAC to 13 or 14 where he is at his best.
Justin said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:14pm | Report comment
Agreed, he needs to be at 13. Digby will do OK there and make some break but he doesnt have the skill set to be a long term 13.
kingplaymaker said | November 10th 2009 @ 1:50am | Report comment
Justin and it also deprives the Wallabies of the one decent wing.
PastHisBest said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:19am | Report comment
“I have seen Turner produce some great breaks and tries at S14 level that the other 2 haven’t.”
Well Harry I’ve seen Hynes do this at test level – last year. What makes you think Turner can repeat his efforts on the international stage where players get significantly less space and time?
Harry said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Well Turner has done more at S14 than Hynes or Mitchell in the past 2 years. Hynes finished well for Australia last year (can’t actually recall too many breaks) I agree but hasn’t done as well this year. However its primarily Mitchell that I reckon isn’t up to test class.
Re Nasingayavi, huge units on the wing are a great concept and have their uses, but that lump the Poms played there on the weekend also showed these guys can be a weakness as well. Nasingayavi is awesome running over Sydney club players I know but having watched him a few times at club level he is far from a test standard player at the moment … needs a lot of coaching and improvement and has the turning circle of the QE2 for instance. But yes there is potential … remember Digby had dreadful hands and non-existent kicking and passing skills for his first few years as a rugby professional. It is only really this year that he has come good, and his game still has some rough edges. Hopefully Nasingayavi can be the same.
PastHisBest said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:43am | Report comment
Let’s compare apples with apples. Turner played at the Waratahs that performed waaaay better than the reds – who make ‘a basket case’ seem like a complimentary term. Agree re: Mitchell.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 4:06pm | Report comment
Harry agreed and Banahan is a perfect example of a disastrous large wing.
We’ll see on Nasingayavi.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:20am | Report comment
Harry the sad truth is that neither Turner or Mitchell or Hynes is very able as a player.
Ioane is, and will surely move back there when fewer players are injured. Above I suggest Nasingayavi as a possibility for next year for the other wing.
PastHisBest said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:26am | Report comment
“Harry the sad truth is that neither Turner or Mitchell or Hynes is very able as a player.”
I have to disagree about Hynes, King. He looked the goods last year and has only just come back from injury, playing in a misfiring team.
Nasingayavi is currently nobody and goes missing for large portion of club games – untried at S14 even. He is unfit and has the turning circle of an aircraft carrier. Much like Banahan.
johnny-boy said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:31am | Report comment
I would prefer to see Smith give away less penalties. Like a few of the older players – he’s become a momentum killer – getting older and slower and lazier. Like Mortlock gettng injured all the time. Having said that they have both been exceptional players but like all good things, come to an end. That’s why marriages last so long.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:32am | Report comment
johhny-boy the question is: is Smith’s bad state at present his body wearing out, or just a temporary loss of form? Hard to know and probably will have to wait until next season to find out.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:31am | Report comment
Pasthisbest Hynes has hardly only just come back: he’s now been playing for several games and still isn’t doing anything. He probably has a little more natural talent than the other two, though only a little.
Nasingayavi is of course a hypothesis and who knows how he’ll do it the Super 14, but at least has some natural talent (Banahan has zero). Australia, in a few key positions, need to find some natural talent from somewhere.
taylor bridge said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:32am | Report comment
Did any fellow armchair experts notice the difference in lightning fast distribution between Giteau and JW. In the first half on attack Matt Giteau gathered the ball under pressure with Hynes beside him and hesitated with the pass. Giteau delayed and could not feed Hynes who was about 15m out. Result no try. Compare that to towards the end of the second half when JW fielded a kick ahead and without a millisecond of hesitation passed to his right , knowing full well that the Aussie defence was going to nail him. He didnt hesitate and Giteau did. That was the difference between the mind sets. There was little likelihood of the English scoring from that quick transfer of the ball but it shows how he was thinking……, unselfishly
stillmissit said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:50am | Report comment
Great observation Taylor – With all wings you have to give them a sniff of a try, not expect them to work their way through 5 defenders.
The main thrust of your post is that Giteau doesn’t rate his outside players enough to give them the ball. Well you can sort of understand that when you are the best 5/8 in the world? but in reality you must use the whole team in internationals or pay the price. 9 man rugby died luckily about 15 years ago.
Hynes is a great winger IMHO but when Giteau and Rocky won’t give him the ball with a chance to score, well you must start to wonder. Someone above said the same thing about Ioane, I think we can see a pattern here and the problem at the centre of the pattern is Giteau.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 11:09am | Report comment
stilmissit I think you can expect a highly talented wing to get past 5 defenders sometimes. Sivivatu does it often.
Rickety Knees said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:49am | Report comment
Past great teams have always had great leaders. I have been impressed with Rocky Elsom’s thoughfulness and insight’s into the game. He is obviously well regarded as a player and a leader by his peers. His subtle handling of the game when he changed tactics to eliminate penalities and therefore JW, bodes well for the future. Excellent leadership, an X factor, inspires greater effort and has the potential to transform. The Wallabies are a young side, that have played boom or bust rugby under Elsom’s leadership they have the potential to be a boom side – Croke Park will reveal whether that potential can be realised.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
Rockety I agree I was impressed with Elsom, not least because he stays calm and shows tactical acumen in tough situations, as shown by his decision to stop pressing at the breakdown where penalties were being given away.
He is a tough bulldozer, but an intelligent tough bulldozer, unlike many (Martin Johnson is the archetypal stupid tough bulldozer..oh no he’s in charge of my national team!).
Jameswm said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:52am | Report comment
What is this rubbuish about Hynes and Turner having no talent?
People seem to have forgotten the number of tries Turner has saved for the Tahs with his cover defence and how often he pops up in the right place at the right time. He is an excellent broken field runner with great acceleration. Write him off at your peril.
Hynes was fantastic for the Wallabies last year and is getting back. He’s a quality footballer – as is Turner.
Mitchell on the other hand has always been flaky, though he has improved significantly in the last year or so. He’s toughened up but I do still get nervous when he gets near the ball.
I thought Pocock looked strong when he came on – maybe benefiting from the tough hitout against the ABs.
The locks weren’t so great in the lineout but they were OK elsewhere. We sent England’s rolling maul back a few times and were on top in the scrums – when the ref was letting us, that is.
If you’re allowed to whinge about the ref when you win – geez for the first 30 he was doing everything he could to stop any momentum the Aussies could build. At one point he missed a blatant entering ruck from side by England and 30 secs later pinged Australia for a 50/50 one (with us on attack – the refs seem to like penalising whichever Wallaby has no.3 on his back)). Decisions like that stop you in your tracks.
stillmissit said | November 9th 2009 @ 11:08am | Report comment
Jameswm – absolutely I am with you 100%. We have some weaknesses but our biggest weakness is the guys working together and prepared to do the tough stuff. Hynes, Turner and Ioane are our strengths for wings and in Ioane’s position maybe he will be our 13.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 11:12am | Report comment
James and stillmissit I can’t imagine how you think Turner, Mitchell or Hynes has been any good in attack this year.
They have made hardly any breaks despite gettting a lot of ball between them. In fact, they have offered next to nothing in attack. They are average players: nothing will change that.
Digby Ioane or Sivivatu, for example, are not an average wings. They makes regular breaks and shreds defences. This is not what those other players do. This year in attack they have done almost nothing.
stillmissit said | November 9th 2009 @ 11:03am | Report comment
Guys this team is the team we have. There are a couple of adjustments but basically this is what we have. We have to make the most of this team if we want a chance of winning the grand slam.
As Ricketty Knees says Rocky has the ability to be a great captain and the team needs to line up behind him. if the team gets tighter and plays harder rugby during this tour they will be much better come next TN’s.
Rickety Knees said | November 9th 2009 @ 11:08am | Report comment
and we will have somebody to match it with McCaw and Smit (if he lasts as a manufactured prop)
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 11:14am | Report comment
stillmissit that’s true for now, but for next year new players should be looked at.
Harry said | November 9th 2009 @ 11:12am | Report comment
I’m hoping Rocky will really deliver against the Irish and dominates them, like McCaw does with us … this is his chance to really stamp himself as a leader in the Martin Johnson/Buck Shelford mould.
pothale said | November 9th 2009 @ 11:14am | Report comment
Don’t think he will. He’s not that dominant.
Jameswm said | November 9th 2009 @ 11:19am | Report comment
Turner was the only Waratah making breaks in the S14 this year, and with little ball and little space.
Hynes has largely been injured this year.
Don’t lump them in with Mitchell.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 11:21am | Report comment
James the Super 14 isn’t international level regarding Turner.
Hynes has been back for long enough that he should be back up to shape by now.
Australia needs Ioane on one wing, and someone equally good on the other.
taylor bridge said | November 9th 2009 @ 11:24am | Report comment
Still Miss It,
I doubt Giteau doesnt rate those outside him, it is just that he believes he can do it himself. Why would you pass to some one else who may not be able to break the line like he thinks he can. Inherent in his style is the apparent lack of communication by Giteau. When he ran to the English line late in the second half and tried to step the inside backs there was no one off his shoulder, because ?? Maybe he didn’t tell them what he was going to do., very likely……
Mark Ella had a plan which could create a try and that was pass and loop. That story of Michael Lynagh in the 1991 world cup , telling his team with two minutes to go and near certain elimination,This is the plan”. as they stood behind the Goal posts ”
All this was happening whilst The Aer Lingus jet was warming up the engines to take them back to Oz .
Under nearly any other leader we have had the communication would not have been as concise , believable and confident.
Matt and Robbie Deans, we need to learn from the past.
Jameswm said | November 9th 2009 @ 11:59am | Report comment
KPM
Who is this one other wing you think will magically materialise? Surely not Nasiganyavi?
Also, if Ioane goes to wing, who plays 13? I can only think of AAC once Shepherd comes back to fullback.
Turner hasn’t had much of a go at test level yet and S14 form will normally (if eventually) translate to test form. He warrants a decent go as (like it or not) he and Hynes are the best we’ve got, with Ioane at 13. There’s no point writing them off – we need to turn them into top test wingers
Rickety Knees said | November 9th 2009 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
JWM – I agree – Nasiganyavi does not want it bad enough – Turner has the steel and is worth the investment. Mitchell is just too erratic. Hynes also has the steel. I would just love Beale to develop into a world class 15 – hmmm. AAC is a great 13. Given the physical impact on players these days we probably need 2 world class players in each position. Oh for a national comp to bring that through …..
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
James one good wing can be created by putting AAC or Mortlock (or Gasnier if he comes this year) at outside centre and moving Ioane out.
Nasingayavi is indeed a possibility as not much is known of him yet.
So that means one wing needs to be found. Hynes I suppose is the best, though that’s not saying much. Turner has had a very good run, he just doesn’t have ability.
My own preference would be to buy in Israel Folau or Jarryd Hayne or both, but they probably cost too much.
Rickety I’m not sure what this mystical ’steel’ you’re talking about is. Turner can have as much ’steel’ as he wants but if he is useless in attack it won’t do him much good.
Be sure of one thing though, the failure of Australia’s wings is huge. The absence of any penetration offensively is seriously damaging the team.
Imagine if Sivivatu and Jason Robinson had been playing for the Wallabies yesterday!
Rickety Knees said | November 9th 2009 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
KPM – as an old No8, bagging wingers has been one of my favourite pastimes. However I cannot overly criticise current Australian wingers when no one will pass the ball to them. Perhaps they need to adopt a League mentality and look to get involved in taking the ball up. Only problem is that unless your have the stature of a Wendall Sailor you are going to get thrown around like a rag doll and turn the ball over.
OK – so steel means to me that you follow the bigger ball carrier and finsih the job – and if unsuccessful you take the hits and get back and do it again and again and again.
IMHO Turner is the best and fastest broken field runner we have – provided someone will pass him the ball.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
Rickety I agree that even wings need steel as well as forwards, but the problem here seems to be lack of quality.
Turner did get a reasonable amount of ball this year, but didn’t do much with it.
Short of importing real talent like Folau and Hayne, there’s not much Australia can do to solve the problem either.
I would move Ioane back out though, as there are very good 13s (AAC and Mortlock) to fill that position, and at least that way there will be one good wing.
stuff happens said | November 9th 2009 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
Good article Spiro. I expected Australia to win more easily as we’d been told that England were cobbled together because of injuries.In fact they played better than I at least expected. Their tight five were pretty good and Lewis Moody was my forward of the match.Wilkinson as you and many others pointed out was extraordinary, but Geraghty whom I’d heard about but never seen play was disappointing.His field kicking was awful. I also thought Monye made no attacking contribution at all despite the fact that England had lots of ball.I agree that England’s coaching is still suspect but you can sense a good side on the way.
Good on Australia two tries to none tells a story, how relieved they’d feel.
And so to Ireland.
Terry Kidd said | November 9th 2009 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
I agree entirely with AngryAnt and CraigB as regards Robinson. Throughout 09 he has been consistently our best forward and is certainly no failure. Anyone who could seriously suggest he is a failure needs to learn a bit about the game and should suggest who in Oz ranks would perform better as a loosehead prop.
To suggest that Turner has no attacking ability is again a false statement. During 09 in both S14 and tests he has scored more tries than any other winger and many have been from broken play when it appeared as if nothing was on …. he did it himself with good pace and evasion. His cover defence is good but he can be caught out of position occasionally in front on defence and his leap, and taking of the high ball, is a little suspect. However if Ione is to play 13 then Turner is a better prospect than Mitchell. Turner does not lack courage, in my view Mitchell does.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 12:43pm | Report comment
Terry Turner was negligible as an attacking force in tests this year, whatever he did in the Super 14.
Brett McKay said | November 9th 2009 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
Great summary Spiro, and most comments seem to echo my main thoughts, so I’ll just offer some quick points:
- Great Test all in all, nowhere near the kickfest I was expecting, and that’s a wonderful thing. More of it please.
- Lock in Quade Cooper please Eddie. If we can’t have Barnes, Cooper is a more-than-adequate replacement. His long balls from 10 to Giteau in space was exactly the sort of thing we’ve all been crying out for.
- Genia: outstanding. The English commentators were running out of superlatives, and even my wife wants him to shave his head to complete “the next George Gregan”.
- Wilkinson and Moody were very, very good for England, and Sheridan impressed me too, in his first game back in three decades.
- Steve Moore: if you can’t throw to 4 or 6 accurately, THEN STOP BLOODY THROWING TO 4 OR 6!!! Seriously, how many lost lineouts will it take for the penny to drop?!?
- and to finish, if I may unleash my inner Viscount Crouchback, did Matt Banahan have a very unfortunate accident in a kindergarten finger-painting class?? What’s with the splotches of orange and green and purple on his neck and arms?!?!
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
Brett you make me think of something: was Barnes really that good this year? Sure he was good with the boot when taking over at fly-half, but did he really do anything that amazing? Maybe Cooper will threaten him soon.
Brett McKay said | November 9th 2009 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
KPM, I’d still have Barnes every day of the week and twice on Saturdays, such is his organising and directing of play. Where he is your classic get-to-a-spot-and-attack-from-there flyhalf, Giteau and Cooper are both a little more eratic in their decision making. I was super impressed with Cooper, he’s a thousand times imporved on his first month of Super rugby this year, so much more composed.
Barnes’ defence alone makes in the first picked when fit, in my mind. To answer your question though, it’s hard to be amazing behind a badly beaten pack, or on a sadly underperforming side…
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
Brett you may have a point. I just wonder if Barnes hasn’t been overpraised by being constantly compared to the under-performing Giteau.
Barnes I suppose is the playmaker, not the runner.
Justin said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:23pm | Report comment
KP – to an extent I am with you re Barnes. He is the safe, guide you around the park type but I am not sure he has the X factor to open up defences consistently like Cooper already can. Barnes defence is amazing though, especially in cover.
Personally I think Barnes has been just a smidge overrated so far but he is a fine player…
Next year at NSW may tell us more about his talents, presumably at 10.
kingplaymaker said | November 10th 2009 @ 1:48am | Report comment
Justin I’m not sure that even the best Wallabies backs like Giteau and Ioane have as much of an x-factor as Tuqiri and Mortlock used to have a few years ago. What they need is a real gamebreaker.
Viscount Crouchback said | November 9th 2009 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
Banahan has a garish tattoo of a Spitfire on his back which, apparently, joins up with a similar tattoo of a Lancaster bomber when he links arms with his brother. The respective tattoos together form a “night-time at Jersey during German occupation” visage. It is quite easily the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
I wouldn’t mind so much if the chap could play, but his turning speed is only marginally quicker than that of the Exxon Valdez.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
VC I’m with you there. He has no ability whatsoever.
Will Genia said after the match ‘Banahan was eaten alive’. To be eaten alive at that size is pretty impressive.
Viscount Crouchback said | November 9th 2009 @ 2:05pm | Report comment
Quite, though it would be nice if someone could have a quiet word in Genia’s ear that gloating in victory is rather unbecoming.
kingplaymaker said | November 9th 2009 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
VC it was an odd thing to say: Banahan has been known to be very provocative, so he might have said something to Genia during the match to provoke that remark. Did you ever see the youtube video of Banahan assaulting a whole team in Jersey? That might explain it.
Knives Out said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:47pm | Report comment
‘VC it was an odd thing to say: Banahan has been known to be very provocative, so he might have said something to Genia during the match to provoke that remark. Did you ever see the youtube video of Banahan assaulting a whole team in Jersey? That might explain it.’
This is literally the most stupid and ridiculous and bizarre thing I have ever read in my entire life, and that is saying something.
Bay35Pablo said | November 9th 2009 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
VC, is that what the world has come too – that was considered gloating? No, gloating would be “He was cr@p”. Genia was just stating facts. He got bettered.
Clearly you lot are far too sensitive, and I can now understand why you lot seem to think Aussies are bad winners (which I could never understand until just now). You’re too bloody precious.
If one of our wingers got eaten alive like that and your half back called it, we Aussies would probably be sitting here saying “fair enough, he did.” Or already be pasting him and considering such a comment too kind.
I look forward to the next post that says sports is too toned down and they don’t call a spade a spade like in the “good old days” …
Harry said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:16pm | Report comment
The esteemed Viscount nailed by Bay35 there …lets see what our supercilious soap-dodging friend comes back with.
Shahsan said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:23pm | Report comment
Well, if nothing else, Genia’s continued success for the Wallabies might lead to union taking over from league as PNG’s national game.
AndyS said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:26pm | Report comment
Or at least some prospective players from that neck of the woods getting a better indication of careers and prospects…
pothale said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:47pm | Report comment
Far be it from me to bat for VC, but making a comment like Banahan was eaten alive is gloating – that’s the point. Stating facts is irrelevant to whether something is gloating or not. And gloating is poor form in anyone’s language or culture.
Besides which Banahan wasn’t eaten alive. He was just bloody poor.
Viscount Crouchback said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:45am | Report comment
That’s a bizarre line of argument. “He was crap” is gloating but “he was eaten alive” is not gloating. There must be some fine logical distinction between the two that I can’t quite grasp, so I’ll take your word for it.
Personally, I prefer the boxing school of sporting banter – all the trash talk in the world is fine before a fight, but keep it respectful afterwards. There is no honour in insulting a beaten opponent.
Parisien said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:58pm | Report comment
Guys, Genia just got his name mixed up, and thought he was called “Banana”.
Parisien said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:55pm | Report comment
VC, that is hilarious! where did you dig that up? I thought Banahan was more Lancaster bomber than Spitfire, but then I haven’t seen his brother…
Colin N said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:46pm | Report comment
“and Sheridan impressed me too, in his first game back in three decades.”
Who? I assume you mean someone else, considering Sheridan wasn’t playing.
Brett McKay said | November 9th 2009 @ 10:55pm | Report comment
Colin, I’ve just logged back in at the right time – I of course meant Steve Thompson, but for some reason was thinking of Andrew Sheridan. Easy mistake, could happen to anyone