The Wallabies slam England in a terrific Test
By Spiro Zavos, 9 Nov 2009 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- England, Grand slam, Jonny Wilkinson, robbie deans, Rugby Union, wallabies
270 Have your say
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.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
- Explore:
- England, Grand slam, Jonny Wilkinson, robbie deans, Rugby Union, wallabies

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.