Plenty of questions for Ireland and England
By Brett McKay, 15 Jun 2010 Brett McKay is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- All Blacks, England rugby, Ireland Rugby, Rugby Union, wallabies
101 Have your say
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Wallabies news
- New Zealand All Blacks news
- England Rugby Union news
- 2011 Wallabies squad news
The first weekend of international rugby on both sides of the Tasman for 2010 has resulted in a massive win for New Zealand, an impressive win for Australia, and plenty of questions for both Ireland and England.
With both nations coming south on the back of respective second and third placings in the Six Nations, it would turn out a disappointing night for both.
The All Blacks opened their 2010 account in empathic fashion in the regional city of New Plymouth, recording a 66-28 demolition of the Irish, and extending their unbeaten run to 25 Tests dating back for 105 years.
No doubt, Ireland were cornered from the moment they lost No.8 Jamie Heaslip for the remainder of the game for a couple of loose knees in the ruck, and their defence was stretched even further when flyhalf Ronan O’Gara was sin-binned.
Forced to defend for ten minutes of the first half with only 13 men, there is little wonder Ireland were little match for the All Blacks’ onslaught. 38-7 at halftime was a fair indication of the one-sidedness.
For the All Blacks, while outside centre Conrad Smith was back to his best, the young brigade really stood out. Prop Ben Franks was great upfront, alongside older brother and fellow prop Owen, inside centre Benson Stanley was outstanding in midfield, and fullback Israel Dagg was rock solid at the back (no pun intended, honestly). Young lock Sam Whitelock capped the perfect debut with two second half tries, his first coming from his first touch of the ball.
In fact, the All Blacks gave us a real glimpse of the future during the last half hour, with young superstar flyhalf Aaron Cruden coming on for Dan Carter, and winger Zac Guildford joining the fray and dropping the average age even further. It’s fair to say the future still looks bloody good for New Zealanders. Dammit…
For Ireland though, it must be concerning the way the All Blacks opened up their defence so regularly, and will no doubt be a huge focus as they head to Australia for their June 26 showdown with the Wallabies.
On a positive note, the Irish were able to stem the flow in the second half, finishing with three tries to New Zealand’s four. Ireland Captain and outside centre Brian O’Driscoll showed why he’s still considered one of the best no.13s in world rugby with a superb individual try, and had a hand in another too.
Actually, Ireland’s backs all showed glimpses in the second half, but by then the damage was well and truly done. Of course, the question remains why it took so long. They have plenty to work on over the next week and a bit.
On this side of the ditch, the Wallabies put aside the demolition of their inexperienced scrum to comfortably account for the motherland 27-17.
England will undoubtedly point to their scrum as being a major point of attack in this game, but the fact is their scrum was their only point of attack. The closest they came to scoring an actual try was when Wallaby No.8 Richard Brown and winger Drew Mitchell brilliantly held up flanker Tom Croft over the line.
Shortly after that, England received two penalty tries from continual scrum infringements from the at times hapless Australian pack.
You had to feel for the inexperienced Wallaby front row, who famously went into the match with less Test minutes between them than their opposites’ number of Tests. When tighthead prop Salesi Ma’afu was sin-binned in the second half – and probably 20 minutes later than he should have been – the Wallabies’ front row comprised three guys with just two bench appearances between them.
Yet for all the scrum troubles, the Wallabies were outstanding in this match, and scrumhalf Luke Burgess and flyhalf Quade Cooper gave displays that would test any decent superlative dictionary. Burgess particularly played possibly his best game in Gold and was in everything in a dominant first forty.
Most pleasing was that the one area I was critical of him last week, standing over the ball at the back of the ruck, was non-existent and his service to Cooper was first class all night. I see Burgess won a flood of praise on The Roar on Sunday too, and with a nice spattering of apologies and “I was wrong” comments among them. Just as I said of Josh Valentine last week, it was telling that Robbie Deans left Will Genia on the bench.
Cooper was directing play with aplomb, no doubt wanting to take on more of a lead role in the absence of Matt Giteau. Cooper used the inside ball to great success most of the night, to the point that centres Berrick Barnes and Rob Horne had quite nights in attack.
James O’Connor continued his dangerous form from last week’s mid-week Australian Barbarians game (now ingeniously relabelled the “Australian Shackledraggers” by those on The Roar protective of the Barbarians name and traditions. Well played, Viscount).
The Wallabies dominated the ruck contest I thought, and it was worth noting in the second half that they were able to pick and choose when to hold back and when to contest. That nearly a third of England’s ruck ball was slow illustrates this beautifully, and while England Captain Lewis Moody seemed a lone hand in the ruck at times, the Wallabies were well-served by Captain Rocky Elsom, David Pocock, Brown and lock Nathan Sharpe.
England looked clueless in attack, save for outside centre Mike Tindall, who was surprisingly benched late in the game. More surprising was that the man who replaced him, Jonny Wilkinson, didn’t come on after halftime for flyhalf Toby Flood.
Perth was the June danger game for the Wallabies, for mine, and I’d now expect them to have few troubles in Sydney next weekend.
My lovely wife probably best summed up England’s showing. Despite battling a failing voice for the last week, she proclaimed in the post-match, “go home, two penalty tries, you can’t even score you big fatties!”
Exactly my sentiments.
If perhaps not in those words.
Follow Brett McKay on Twitter: @BMcSport
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.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (173)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (70)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (65)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (58)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (29)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (19)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- All Blacks, England rugby, Ireland Rugby, Rugby Union, wallabies

jus de couchon said | June 15th 2010 @ 6:00am | Report comment
Basicaly we [England] stuffed you up front which is usualy good enuff to win most games. Unfortunately our team is coached by someone who , great forward as he was , hasnt a clue about back play. Any half decent International backline would have decimated Aus with that kind of forward dominance.
Seiran said | June 15th 2010 @ 6:12am | Report comment
Your right, the English did stuff the Wallabies up front, but only in the scrums. the Walalbies tore the English a new one in all other areas of the game.
The problem for England was that they only had the dominance in the scrum. They certainly didn’t have the upper hand with the ruck and mauls and as you point out, they had no idea what to do about back play.
If teams want to win games with forward play they need to win turn over ball.
Brett McKay said | June 15th 2010 @ 6:31am | Report comment
Jus, I guess there’s a couple of more questions right there. That England couldn’t use that scrum dominance says plenty about both England’s attack and Australia’s defence. Another loss in Sydney would no doubt have the wagons circling Martin Johnson…
CraigB said | June 15th 2010 @ 8:06am | Report comment
I would have thought it would be the wolves circling wouldn’t it?
kingplaymaker said | June 15th 2010 @ 8:33am | Report comment
No Craig it will indeed be the wagons: the RFU will not under any circumstances fire Johnson until after the World Cup because they are dunderheads and their own jobs depend on him, so they will circle around aimlessly like wagons.
Brett McKay said | June 15th 2010 @ 8:30am | Report comment
Craig, have you not watched old Western movies??
soapit said | June 15th 2010 @ 9:40am | Report comment
isnt it the native americans that circle the wagons though?
Brett McKay said | June 15th 2010 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
does it really matter Soapit?? Removing all poorly-executed metaphors, Johnson looks to be on shaky ground regardless…
Jerry said | June 15th 2010 @ 3:34pm | Report comment
No, to ‘circle the wagons’ is when the cowboys/settlers etc arrange their wagons in a circle so they can better defend from attack by bandits or native americans. I can see where you’d be confused though, cause Brett’s metaphor is a bit clumsy. It should be Johnson/England ‘circling the wagons’ to brace for the oncoming criticism etc . The wagons are the ones in danger.
Craig is right, it would be more appropriate to say the wolves are circling (or indeed sharks).
Brett McKay said | June 15th 2010 @ 3:47pm | Report comment
I’m circling the wagons on this metaphor now…
Parisien said | June 15th 2010 @ 6:46pm | Report comment
The sharks are circling the wagons on shaky ground.
katzilla said | June 15th 2010 @ 11:02pm | Report comment
Batten down the Hatchet?
warrenexpatinnz said | June 15th 2010 @ 1:49pm | Report comment
I assume jus you are talking about a Bok or AB backline as yes I would agree that if the Wallabies played the same front row for the first time against those two sides, the Wallabies would have lost.
What must be irking you secretly is the fact that Deans played those inexperienced front three full well knowing that were going to do it tough, left them on the park for nearly the full 80 minutes only because he knew there was no way in hell that the Wallabies could lose to the English side!
To further the knife into the body that is English rugby, what makes you think that your English forwards were any good aside from crouching and pushing as they certainly didn’t show themselves around the park, alongside the rucks in defence and in taking the ball up over the advantage line.
For god sakes man (common English phrase?) your supposedly dominant forwards tried attacking the Wallaby line for extended periods against supposedly smaller and weaker backs yet couldn’t get over. It is not just the English backs that need changing mate, the head down a… up approach of the forwards in todays game only works now if they can look left and right and run faster than 2km an hour.
Seiran said | June 15th 2010 @ 6:08am | Report comment
I was especially impressed with how Deans left the front three out in the field when it was all to clear they were getting smashed. Game time at the top level is extremely important for these guys and to be frank, they can only get better.
The English pack has always been a good one and I think the rookies have learnt bucket loads playing against these guys.
The Wallabies should be feeling pretty confident come the 3N knowing their experienced players will be back in the squad to add strenght to the pack.
Hugo said | June 15th 2010 @ 6:08am | Report comment
BRETT – I would remind you that this is a family forum the viewing of which, I’m sure, is not proscribed in the average Aussie household, and to call a team Big Fatties sends the wrong message to our kids re use of profane and/or vulgar epithets. I grant you Big Fatties is witty – worthy of Wilde or Levant at their most ascerbic – but it doesn’t belong on The Roar.
Seiran said | June 15th 2010 @ 6:15am | Report comment
what? It was tongue in cheek. Exactly what us Roarers want to read.
Get over it.
All those in favour?
Brett McKay said | June 15th 2010 @ 6:19am | Report comment
Aye…
Hugo, I’m sure the message will be received with the intent with which it was delivered!!
Grimmace said | June 15th 2010 @ 7:43am | Report comment
They are big fatties who can scrum but very ordinary at most other things on a rugby field.
Who Needs Melon said | June 15th 2010 @ 6:45am | Report comment
“a couple of loose knees in the ruck”??? Makes it sound like he was a little careless. It was all an accident. Tighten up with those knees next time Heaslip!
Be nice to see how Ireland go when they keep 15 on the field for the duration.
Brett McKay said | June 15th 2010 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Melon, it’s fair to say it wasn’t a high point in clear thinking for Jamie Heaslip…
Vinay Verma said | June 15th 2010 @ 7:56am | Report comment
Brett,watching the last two games, Fiji and England, I have been impressed by Rocky Elsom’s leadership. After a hesitant start he now seems more assured and is playing with a ” follow me boys” attitude. Having been monstered in the scrums by Billy Bunter look alikes, Elsom marshalled the rucks and mauls with a proprietary air. He was saying,in effect, this ball belongs to us.
If Elsom can bring this attitude to the AB’s then McCaw will not have it all his own way.
Brett McKay said | June 15th 2010 @ 8:29am | Report comment
Vinay, Elsom was one of the best afield against England, and I’d agree, it was probably one of his better captaincy displays as well, but in the Fiji game I thought he was actually a little off, and I noted that it was often David Pocock offering the fire-up words. But Elsom led well on Sat night, you could tell he was getting annoyed in the scrums, but he also kept encouraging the young pigs too, and when they did hold their own up front (both times) he was the first to give them a pat on the back…
ilikedahoodoogurusingha said | June 15th 2010 @ 11:24am | Report comment
“Having been monstered in the scrums by Billy Bunter look alikes”
That’s really what your wife meant to say wasn’t it Brett!!
Brett McKay said | June 15th 2010 @ 11:42am | Report comment
Rockin Rod said | June 15th 2010 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
I noticed that about pocock tto Brett. Every break of play he has something to say and always being positive, slapping the props on the back , giving them encouragement when they were down. Rocky, not much.
I also read that QC nearly signed with the Force as he saw Pocock as a great leader( this is from a guy his own age), never mentioned genias leadership qualities at the REDS. It must be Pocock for future wallaby captain
kingplaymaker said | June 15th 2010 @ 8:45am | Report comment
Brett a good point about the breakdown. This is not the best pack England could select, but it is a lot closer to being so than the backs and in Cole, Shaw, Palmer, and Croft they have perfectly good players. So to dominate there is good and also to match what is a physical pack.
However the real test is whether they can match the far greater physicality of the South African pack, which is not only strong but throws its powerful players forward at speed (Spies’ 100m time is probably half Easter’s). The Springbok pack simply bashed France into submission in the loose last week.
Things seem ok so far though, certainly better than last year. Brown and Sharpe appear to have gone up a gear as test players.
Could it also be that there’s a confidence in Australian rugby because more of their teams succeeded this year and this has seeped into the Wallabies squad? Also, the fracturing of the team following the Tuqiri sacking is obviously not an issue anymore.
Mr Saunders said | June 15th 2010 @ 8:49am | Report comment
Actually this is probably the best pack that England can select, Andrew Sheridan and Dylan Hartley aside.
Did more of ‘their teams’ succeed this year? The Reds improved, but the rest…
CraigB said | June 15th 2010 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
3 out of the 4 sides were in finals contention with 2 weeks to go. Not neccessarily a success as such but a definite improvement.
Mr Saunders said | June 15th 2010 @ 7:36pm | Report comment
The Brumbies finished 6th this year and 7th last year. The Waratahs made the finals, andthey have been there or thereabouts for the past few seasons. The only team to show tangible improvement was the Reds. I don’t think Iimagined all the criticisms and barbs aimed at the Brumbies and Tahs this past season?
AR said | June 15th 2010 @ 9:01am | Report comment
I believe Spies was 110m national hurdles champion in his youth. He was / is an absolute freak and a lot quicker then most wingers.
Brett McKay said | June 15th 2010 @ 9:06am | Report comment
KPM, obviously the Wallabies still have plenty of question too, but I’d be happy to delay talk about the TNs for the moment. Australia can only – and I’m sorry for this – ahem, “play what’s in front of them”, so just dealing with England again should be the main priority. I’ll be interested to watch Weekes and Polata-Nau in the Shackledraggers scrums tonight for starters…
kingplaymaker said | June 15th 2010 @ 9:21am | Report comment
Brett that’s certainly true, and they are much better that at the same time last year, and players like Burgess, Mitchell, Brown, Sharpe, O’Connor are far better than they were a year ago.
Mr Saunders I disagree this is the best pack England can select. Easter was shown up for the lumberer he is, Haskell or Narraway at number 8 are faster, Moody while valiant does not have the skill of Rees, Lawes is more talented than Palmer.
Mr Saunders said | June 15th 2010 @ 9:29am | Report comment
Easter is a very good player when surrounded with quick (and intelligent players). Let’s not forget that Moody isn’t a natural 7. Easter is a good lineout technician, he is a good mauler, has soft hands and is an aggressive defender. He isn’t the quickest, but with Croft and perhaps Armitage he doesn’t need to be. He is also (apparently) a recognised leader. I do think he may lack certain superficial aspects to his game, but when he plays well so does England.
Haskell showed superb dynamism from the back of the scrum in the Autumn but absolutely no rugby nous whatsoever, and Narraway hasn’t played especially well in years. I also feel that he is far too lightweight to play test rugby, and has poor hands. Ideally Dowson should have been given a shot, IMO, but he is also smallish.
I honestly prefer Attwood to Lawes. Lawes still sees himself as a 6 and that shows in his play.
kingplaymaker said | June 15th 2010 @ 9:37am | Report comment
Mr Saunders I suggest you go and watch the saturday match if you think Easter is a good player. His lack of pace was ruthlessly exposed, his physicality nonexistent. Obviously he was up against a better team in Australia than he’s used to in the six nations, but his performance was negligible.
I disagree Narraway hasn’t played well, and Haskell is the one forward runner who can break through walls and take the team forward. If you remember the New Zealand tour two years ago Narraway and Haskell along with Rees made an outstanding, skilled, dynamic trio against the then number one team in the world. They, along with Croft, should be the England loose forwards. If you had watched the match on saturday you would have seen how a modern back row needs to be both fast and skilled, qualitites which some of the toilers Johnson selects do not possess.
Lawes is a far more physical, fast and more skilled player than Attwood and less of a thug to boot.
Mr Saunders said | June 15th 2010 @ 9:43am | Report comment
I would never judge a player on one performance.
When has Narraway played well over the past two seasons? Yes, I do recall those tests in NZ, and I recall the handling errors that Narraway made. The English back row wasn’t exceptional in those games, it was simply better than the rest of a very poor team.
The key issue here is that playing 8 isn’t simply about dynamism. It is a very specific position and thus simply shoving an athlete there won’t work, which is what we saw in during the Autumn with Haskell.
Attwood is a thug based on one incident? Have you watched both players play lock this season? What does Lawes do better than Attwood?
Pothale said | June 15th 2010 @ 8:46am | Report comment
“Ireland though, it must be concerning the way the All Blacks opened up their defence so regularly, and will no doubt be a huge focus as they head to Australia for their June 26 showdown with the Wallabies.”
Not really. Ireland were down to 13 men when NZ scored 4 tries. And were 14 men for the remainder. NZ got lucky when Barnes penalised Ireland just as they were about to score. Barnes obviously felt he had keep the NZ and IRB happy by sending Heaslip off.
Ireland also had to field a weakened Team and use all their bench as well including 5 newbies, so NZ were at no disadvantage with similar circumstances. With 15 players, I’m sure they would have beaten them.
Australia should be a tougher match.
Justin said | June 15th 2010 @ 9:02am | Report comment
Pots – have I misinterpreted your post? Do you not think Headlip should have been sent off?
Hoy said | June 15th 2010 @ 9:25am | Report comment
Pot, are you going to open up a similar argument to last year again (when you thought Palu was rightly sent off for the insidious shoulder charge on Kearney ( which vision shows was a massive, legal, hit), yet Kearney’s shoulder on Elsom (which vision shows was all shoulder and no arms whatsoever) was just fine)?
Heaslip is clearly kneeing someone. I don’t care what the someone was doing on the bottom of the ruck. Kneeing is a card, and he did it twice, right in front of the ref.
pothale said | June 15th 2010 @ 9:31am | Report comment
Justin.
No. Yes.
Or is that Yes. No.?
Hoy. No I’m not going to open up a similar argument. Heaslip was as guilty as Palu was.
Brett McKay said | June 15th 2010 @ 9:16am | Report comment
Pots, it’s a bit of a pity that Ireland don’t get a second shot at NZ this weekend, if nothing else to answer that very questions, how they would have gone with 15 for the full 80.
Heaslip had to go though, I’m not sure what that has to do with keeping the IRB happy. In fact the IRB’s given him 5 weeks…
pothale said | June 15th 2010 @ 9:34am | Report comment
Brett.
True. Course he had to go.
Justin said | June 15th 2010 @ 9:40am | Report comment
He is lucky he only got 5, lucky he didn’t crack the players skull and lucky few of the ABs saw it.
One of the more gutless acts I have seen for a while.
pothale said | June 15th 2010 @ 6:50pm | Report comment
Yawn.
Parisien said | June 15th 2010 @ 6:59pm | Report comment
I’m sorry to open an old can of worms, but can someone explain to me why deliberate kneeing to the head gets five weeks and eye-gouging gets nine months? They are both nasty, dangerous acts. And stomping a players head on the ground is even more life-threatening but doesn’t always get punished. There does seem to be some inconsistency here.
pothale said | June 16th 2010 @ 1:28am | Report comment
Parisien – be honest, you’re not sorry.
John Hayes – that paragon of virtue who’s never been given out to in his playing career stamped on an Irish player’s head last season and got sent off for ten, subsequently cited and banned for a period.
Heaslip made mild contact with someone’s head (McCaw or Kaino?) on the first time, and not on the second, if I recall the ruling correctly. He wasn’t even very good at that. The citing guy had access to some other angle (which I didn’t see shown on TV admittedly) that allowed him to be this specific. Heaslip had a clean record previously according to citing guy. It was deemed a mid-range offence.
Do I think it was as bad as say Quinlan or Burger with their eye-raking? No, in my view.
warrenexpatinnz said | June 15th 2010 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
Even with 15 on the park Brett believe the ABs would have won still and with a twenty point buffer. The ABs may have released the pressure pedal when Heaslip went off and this was more noticeable in the second half. When you know the opposition is down a man you naturaly think gaps will open up and I think you could see this in some of the ABs rushed moves wide.
pothale said | June 15th 2010 @ 7:09pm | Report comment
“The ABs did not release the pressure pedal when Heaslip went off”.??
They scored four tries in quick succession, for Grid’s sake! And two of them under or near the posts. They were demonic in their attack, and rightly took full advantage to try and put the game result to bed.
Ireland had to make two further substitutions in the first half, further weakening their structure with more newbies entering the field.
Main raft of subbing occurred in the second half for both sides where the benches were used throughout the second half. Both teams had to make do with weakened sides to start with with about equal caps experience across each team, and using first-timers, or those with one/two caps achieved against second tier sides such as USA & Canada, as well as Fiji.
It still ended in a hammering for Ireland – no arguing with that. Ireland weren’t good enough.
kingplaymaker said | June 15th 2010 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Mr Saunders Narraway has played very well over the last two years.
His performances in New Zealand two years ago were excellent. If Richie Mccaw agrees as he said at the time, I have confidence my judgement was correct.
No 8 isn’t just about dynamism, it’s about skill too which Narraway has in abundance.
I’ve watched both Lawes and Attwood play and listed to you above the four attributes Lawes has which Attwood doesn’t.
Attwood is a thug on the basis of his two dispicable stampings last tuesday against the Australian Barbarians.
Mr Saunders said | June 15th 2010 @ 7:39pm | Report comment
‘Mr Saunders Narraway has played very well over the last two years.’
You have already said this. simply repeating yourself doesn’t count as fact. When?
‘His performances in New Zealand two years ago were excellent. If Richie Mccaw agrees as he said at the time, I have confidence my judgement was correct.’
What did McCaw say about Narraway?
‘I’ve watched both Lawes and Attwood play and listed to you above the four attributes Lawes has which Attwood doesn’t.’
What does speed have to do with locking, and what does more ‘physical’ mean? How often have you watched either play play this season? What does Lawes do, as a lock, better than Attwood?
‘Attwood is a thug on the basis of his two dispicable stampings last tuesday against the Australian Barbarians.’
That’s a personal opinion, but very knee-jerk and certainly not very Christian.
Mr Saunders said | June 15th 2010 @ 8:46am | Report comment
Just back from holiday, Brett, and missed all the games. By the sounds of it not a bad set of games to miss. The consensus seems to be that the English attack looked poor. Was that due to Australian work in the ruck? The only itme that the English pack hit the ruck with vigour in the 6N the backs looked penetrative and intelligent. Either Wells or Smith has to go asap…
P.S. If you get a chance go and see some of the tombs in the Valley of the Kings and some of the temples in Luxor and Aswan. Truly breath taking.
Viscount Crouchback said | June 15th 2010 @ 9:17am | Report comment
I’d say it was more due to brilliant Australian defence, constantly knocking England backwards on the gainline. England simply didn’t generate enough go-forward ball. The pick-and-go worked well against Ireland in the Six Nations but it didn’t work at all at the weekend. I think the senior England team needs to take a leaf out of their U20s book and shift the point of attack wider.
To be honest, though, the worst part of England’s game was the abysmal kick-chase. The kicking was aimless and the chasing was even worse. Stephen Jones made the interesting point that a bad kick-chase simply indicates a lack of passion. He reckons the coaches have “lost” the players. I don’t give Jones much credence, but the likes of Tindall and Easter certainly don’t look happy.
Mr Saunders said | June 15th 2010 @ 9:24am | Report comment
England hasn’t dominated the gainline in years. People do need to go because England have been playing that woeful short drive phase play for far too long. It’s idiotic and easy to defend. I’m not sure whose idea it is, but given that that style pre-dated Johnson I do have my suspicions.
I don’t agree re: Jones. There could be myriad reasons for a poor kick-chase, and let’s not forget, VC, that we’ve both seen endless games featuring woeful kicking and chasing from endless teams over the past two seasons. Reading the press reports the players seem content (Johnno is the first England head honcho to contact me regularly etc…). Who really knows? I don’t, but then I guess Jones doesn’t either as he seems to have been frozen out of the England loop.
All things considered I’d like to see Attwood instead of Palmer, a genuine 7, a new 9 and Barkley. That aside I think the selection has been good, it’s just the on-field issues that keep re-occuring with every coach apart from Woodward. Same old. A win against the Barbarians would be a start.
Colin N said | June 15th 2010 @ 11:12am | Report comment
Hopefully S.Armitage will go well and Youngs was very good when he came on and injected a bit of pace into England.
Mr Saunders said | June 15th 2010 @ 10:55pm | Report comment
There is a love affair with Moody in England, but he is not a natural 7, and that is the thrust of the matter. If England want to play a 6 at 7 then they might as well do it for tactical reasons, as they did with Worsley, or simply play a natural 7. Moody doesn’t play 7 for tactical reasons, and IMHO he doesn’t add much that is constructive, or even intelligently destructive.
I see that Wigglesworth and Hodgson were rather poor today, Colin. Hodgson’s England career is probably over now.
Colin N said | June 15th 2010 @ 11:15pm | Report comment
I thought Hodgson did ok (I thought his defence was excellent), but you are right about Wigglesworth – he’s just too slow from the base of the ruck. He’s the sort of scrum-half you want in the cold, damp and dreary winters of England as he has a good kicking game and controls the game well.
On the subject of the openside flanker position, I thought Armitage was excellent today – he slowed their ball down, turned the ball over a couple of times and went on a couple of runs.
Mr Saunders said | June 16th 2010 @ 7:28am | Report comment
Come on, Colin, Charlie was a shambles. His kicking was poor, his distribution was muddled and he knocked on various times. He looked like a rabbit in a headlights.
Agreed about Steffon Armitage. Shame his brother was so, so poor.
Brett McKay said | June 15th 2010 @ 9:26am | Report comment
Mr S, Lord Viscount’s beaten me to the punch. No doubt the Wallaby ruck work played a major part, but the defence is what really did the damage. England had the ball pretty much exclusively for the last 10 before halfetime, but never looked light getting over the line, and in fact even went backwards at points.
Shontayne Hape was supposedly going to give Giteau and then Barnes nightmres, but the truth is Barnes shut him down beautifully, including one rush move with England camped in the Aus 22, where Hape panicked into throwing a rushed pass forward. When I said in the column I was surprised that Tindal was benched, I thought Hape would be the one making way for Wilkinson…
Mr Saunders said | June 15th 2010 @ 9:34am | Report comment
Hape, eh?! I see the logic behind his selection – Barkley has 20 odd caps, we know what he can do etc… Hape is a big guy and presents an alternative style of play. Let’s try him in a tough environment and see how he goes. Or maybe not…
If Hape was that bad (and he was shifted to 13 as soon as Barkley regained fitness at Bath), then does he deserve another crack? By the sounds of it the entire side was lacklustre, so why not give him another go? Best to find out now than in NZ next year I suppose. Personally I’d rather see Barkley playing inside Flood.
Goodness, is it that much to ask for an aggressive and confrontational team performance?! (sigh)
kingplaymaker said | June 15th 2010 @ 9:39am | Report comment
Mr Saunders Hape wasn’t that bad. He wasn’t particularly good, but such was Australia’s domination neither he nor many of the other backs had a chance to be.
I personally think he is the only 12 who can actually really break through a midfield gap. He may not be a remarkable player, but there is not better option in this respect. Barkley has always seemed average to me.
kingplaymaker said | June 15th 2010 @ 9:41am | Report comment
Brett how many chances to break the line can you honestly say Hape was given? He’s definitely not good enough to give Giteau or Barnes nightmares, but he’s not completely untalented either. He’s a moderately talented player.
Wilkinson is the least threatening runner ever born, and the most uncreative distributor. That rules out the two main qualities a 12 can have.
Mr Saunders said | June 15th 2010 @ 9:46am | Report comment
I totally disagree re Wilkinson’s passing. If you watch him regularly his gainline passing is exceptional (hence the murmurs that he should play 12). The real issue is his innate conservatism that means he rarely threatens to make the passes he is capable of.
kingplaymaker said | June 15th 2010 @ 10:21am | Report comment
I don’t know exactly what you mean by passing here. Sure he can pass accurately, but without any vision whatsoever and at no speed. He is completely uncreative:
No one ever said he was?
He was always a kicking fly-half, kicking well out of hand and at goal, and defending exceptionally (he’s lost the first two qualities by the way). Even his strongest admirers never claimed he was a creative fly-half. The way he played suited the way England used to play and it’s fine in its own terms, Morne Steyn is just the same. But of course it does cripple the backline if you want to use it.
Colin N said | June 15th 2010 @ 11:15am | Report comment
The only time I can remember Wilkinson receiving the ball he sent Haskell into a gap, who subsequently made 20 metres and dropped the ball when he went into contact.
Mr Saunders said | June 15th 2010 @ 7:41pm | Report comment
‘Sure he can pass accurately, but without any vision whatsoever and at no speed.’
Wilkinson is generally uncreative, but this is simply untrue. He has an excellent passing game, but rarely utilises it.
Brett McKay said | June 15th 2010 @ 10:08am | Report comment
KPM, it’s true Hape didn’t get a lot of opportunity, but even when he did Barnes was all over him. He was shifted to 13 when Wilkinson came on for Tindall, but got no more opportunities there either. In fact I can’t even recall Wilkinson getting much ball, to be honest..
kingplaymaker said | June 15th 2010 @ 10:18am | Report comment
Barnes is of course one of the world’s best defensive centres, but Hape should be able to make some impact in any case. Just as well for England Wilkinson didn’t get much ball.
Terry Kidd said | June 15th 2010 @ 8:56am | Report comment
Just a quick note for Pothale …..
Mate, on the 26 June I will be in a pub in Caxton Street, Brisbane with an Irish mate, drinking beers prior to heading the short way to Suncorp for the Wallabies v Ireland test. Pots I’m hoping for a good hard test won by the Wallabies by 10-15.
After the game my mate and I will be back in Caxton Street. I’m pretty sure that I won’t find any Poths Ale mate but I will hoist a couple of cold ones in the general direction of Dublin and drink your health.
Cheers Pots.
pothale said | June 15th 2010 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Good on ya, Terry. Cheers. Shall do the same.
PS 10-15? I’m gonna wait til after the NZ Maoris game before i respond to that one.
Brett McKay said | June 15th 2010 @ 10:17am | Report comment
Did anyone notice Pocock giving Flood a mouthful after Flood took something of a soft option and kicked the ball out to bring on halftime?? I couldn’t read Pocock’s lips, but I can guess what was being said. Hopefully there’s a column for The Roar in it!!
And fans of The Simpsons might be interested to know that my second-last paragraph was supposed to read “Exactly my sentimonies”, but obviously the Ed’s spellchecker put an end to that….