England have done the Wallabies a massive favour

Brett McKay Columnist

By Brett McKay, Brett McKay is a Roar Expert

Tagged:
 , , , ,

273 Have your say

Popular article! 8,163 reads

    There’s no escaping the obvious, England’s Cook Cup-sealing second Test win over the Wallabies in Melbourne was as complete as it was clinical.

    Eddie Jones brought his squad to Australia with the express intention of winning the series, and they’ve done that with a week to spare.

    In doing so – England’s first ever three-Test series win – they’ve climbed to number two in the World Rugby rankings, while the Wallabies have slipped to fourth.

    What it shows is just how far off the pace England were during the Rugby World Cup. Oh, how they’d love to find a time machine with the form they’re currently enjoying.

    The tactics of again imposing themselves physically on the Wallabies worked a treat, with the locals put off their game from the outset, unable to establish the platform of points as in Brisbane the week before. By the time the Wallabies finally got their head in the game and found their first points, they were already trailing by ten.

    From there, England simply dug in. And waited.

    As they found last week in Brisbane, patience was the name of the game, and as long as their defensive line held, the inevitable Australian mistakes would come. Twenty-four turnovers the Wallabies conceded, but I’d hate to think how many of them came on the end of extended periods of phase possession.

    And, of course, England’s line did hold. Their defensive effort has been nothing short of phenomenal this series and is clearly the hallmark of the Jones blueprint. On Saturday night in Melbourne the England defence was herculean from the opening whistle, and simply never gave Australia a sniff.

    Depending on your stats source, England made 182 of 213 tackles, or 217 of 242 tackles. Whatever the number, making that many tackles in 80 minutes in the range of 85-90 per cent success is incredible.

    Jones, before arriving in Australia, mentioned his players’ fitness levels needed work, and he simply wouldn’t even contemplate such a defence-heavy gameplan without having made gains.

    Billy Vunipola played the full 80 making 20 tackles, while James Haskell (23 tackles) and Dylan Hartley (17) played all but eight minutes. Chris Robshaw also went off after 72 minutes after hitting I don’t know how many rucks.

    Haskell and Robshaw combined for 27 of the 99 tackles England made in Brisbane, too, and played the full match.

    The series win was a triumph of Jones’ planning over the comparative uncertainty of Michael Cheika’s preparations. There’s no doubt the former Randwick rake out-pointed his younger teammate by any measure you’d like to throw up: on the field, media mind games, clarity of selection, whatever.

    Jones somehow managed to maintain the underdog status, despite the first Test win, and beautifully maintained the narrative of England being up against it. How many times last week did you hear the phrases, “coach of the year”, or “number two in the world”, or “on their own turf”?

    Countless.

    He didn’t quite have the same amount of time as he prepared Japan for their historic Rugby World Cup win over South Africa, but there can be little doubt Jones went into similar great detail about just how his side would pull the Wallabies’ game apart. And he’s not done yet; he’s already demanded a series whitewash of his team, and right now, it’s hard to know just how the Wallabies will stop that.

    And that’s the worrying bit. Just where will the Wallabies’ spark come from?

    The loss in Melbourne could be attributed to a number of factors; almost a self-fulfilling prophecy situation. A lack of go-forward platform begat a passive breakdown presence begat a backline forced to carry into contact, which once again found no way of making forward progress.

    Changes will almost certainly be required for the third Test in Sydney, but I have no idea where to start. Reading the reactions and post-mortems since Saturday night hasn’t helped either, because aside from Samu Kerevi, Israel Folau, and Dane Haylett-Petty, every player should apparently be dropped.

    And even then, Kerevi, Folau, and Haylett-Petty should play different positions in Sydney, so the stories go.

    The reality is we’re all just guessing. Shuffling the deck chairs, if you like. I have no idea what rein Cheika can pull now, and I’d be pleasantly surprised if he’s worked it out by now anyway.

    Besides, whomever Cheika picks, the England team will just back their white wall.

    So it’s silver lining time. England – and Eddie – might be doing the Wallabies a massive favour.

    If the Wallabies have any success in the Rugby Championship this year – let alone the Bledisloe – it might just be that the harsh lessons learnt during this Cook Cup series loss will have been the catalyst.

    Cheika and his assistants – particularly attack coach Stephen Larkham – need to go back to the drawing board with regard to the attacking shape. Finding some would be a first step, and from there the variations and the alternate plans can be developed.

    Because what’s clear after these last two outings is that while other teams have moved on from their Rugby World Cup methods, the Wallabies have not. They’re offering up easy pickings for opposition sides currently, and it doesn’t take much imagination to see teams letting the Wallabies play all the rugby, while they just defend and wait for errors.

    New Zealand could do exactly that and have a field day converting those inevitable errors into points.

    It’s all fine and good for Cheika to deflect and say he has to take responsibility for the series loss, just as he did after the Rugby World Cup final. But there also has to come a time – soon, you’d hope – where the Wallabies themselves can see that whatever it is they think they’re doing for 80 minutes quite obviously isn’t working.

    Brett McKay
    Brett McKay

    Brett McKay is one of The Roar's good news stories and has been a rugby and cricket expert for the site since July 2009. Brett is an international and Super Rugby commentator for ABC Grandstand radio, has commentated on the Australian Under-20s Championships and National Rugby Championship live stream coverage, and has written for magazines and websites in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the UK. He tweets from @BMcSport.

    Have Your Say



    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (273)

    • June 21st 2016 @ 6:03am
      Johnny Boy Jnr said | June 21st 2016 @ 6:03am | ! Report

      By the end of the year there will be some pace and power on the wings with Koroibete and Naivalu.
      I’d like to see a backline run by Quade one last time with these big wingers running off his inside shoulder like Digby in his pomp
      Give Stirzacker and Frisby an extended run, bring back Scott Higginbotham and for the love of God play true number 7 at 7. If Liam Gill becomes ineligible and Pocock’s away – George Smith should paid double next season to fill the role.
      Watch how many more breaks are possible when the backs are allowed to attack from turnover ball where the defence isn’t set

      • June 21st 2016 @ 8:16am
        Daveski said | June 21st 2016 @ 8:16am | ! Report

        See that’s exactly the problem – you’ve offered up half a dozen names and they’ve all either retired from intl footy, are or will be playing in Europe and not eligible, are currently ineligible under World Rugby laws or are currently playing league!!!!

        • June 21st 2016 @ 10:45am
          Jokerman said | June 21st 2016 @ 10:45am | ! Report

          Did the roar bully you into that title Brett? There had been a theme with that of late as Jones has done to Cheiker. England haven’t done Australia a favour. They have shown them skill, power and reality.

          Cheiker was almost chasing fools gold. The niggle, off the ball play, the ego, the fight. Somehow it went his way so he kept chasing it but that method can’t sustain itself. Cheiker moans then he picks a similar captain in Moore. Moore loves to banter the ref. Moan, complain. It worked perfectly with Wayne Barnes so like the fool he continues expecting great results. But the mates rates and an open ear to persuasion only works with Barnes. And so like a self entitled child reality later catches up and discovered is a tough world with consequences.

          Cheiker has to evolve and remove his ego or another end awaits.

          • Roar Guru

            June 21st 2016 @ 12:42pm
            ThugbyFan said | June 21st 2016 @ 12:42pm | ! Report

            The Joker, I’m a little perplexed so lemme get the gist of your post; Poor little England, skillful in rugger but such gentle folks come to the Antipodes and are brutalised by the colonial mongrels, who just want to niggle and knuckle all day. These lovely folks from the Bleak Isles of the North are shocked at such aggression, for they, like all girls, just wanna have fun. They would never contemplate elbows, knees or choke tackles or any illegality at all. Luckily for these gentle vikings, the referee, suitably chastised by WR/IRB after a cruel blow to all righteousness against Scotland the Brave, steps in and protects those sweet innocent child-like rugger buggers from the North.

            The uncouth Colonials, arrogant to the end, moaning to and bullying this brave referee (unlike that scumbag Barnes chap who cost God’s Answer to Rugby a RWC2007) are smote by the gentle rugger elves of North Planet. All is good in the world, for the childish bullies of the Antipodes have got their comeuppance. Signed: Batman

            You are dead right with one thing, that S.Moore should stfu with the moaning to the referee. I’ve never met a ref yet who will change his ruling because the captain thinks/tells him he is wrong. Similar to bitching about someone over there 35 seconds ago putting a cheap shot on your teammate and asking why didn’t the referee penalise him. It just antagonises the referee and works against you.

            As for the reaction against C.Robshaw throttling the little halfback, it was pretty stupid but understandable. To that point, both sides were hammering each other with the kitchen sink and you have to protect your teammates. But shoulder charging someone else in the back was plain DUMB and negated a possible yellow card. Of course SANZAAR/WR/IRB didn’t cite Robshaw, after all he is a Pom not James Horwell or D.Pocock. ๐Ÿ™‚

            • June 21st 2016 @ 5:28pm
              Craig said | June 21st 2016 @ 5:28pm | ! Report

              He was never going to yeoow card Robshaw anyway – said it was just a penalty offence. I don’t understand how Pocock got three weeks’ suspension for the same offence.and Robshaw gets away with it two games in a row. Is it only SANZAR who is targeting it? If Robshaw hurts someone seriously in the third test there are going to be some red-faced officials.

            • June 21st 2016 @ 8:49pm
              Ken Catchpole's Other Leg said | June 21st 2016 @ 8:49pm | ! Report

              Thugby Fan, there’s something we just don’t understand.
              Australians, and their rugby team are full,of egos and ego, and lack,the humility of another nation nearby.

              Jokerman is merely just pointing this out in own ‘humble’ way.

              • June 22nd 2016 @ 2:58pm
                Jokerman said | June 22nd 2016 @ 2:58pm | ! Report

                Well said, Ken. The bigger the ego, the bigger the fall. It’s a weakness and some don’t see it that way. Cheiker shows weakness in his armour. Mckenzie showed it to me too. Cheiker is in mind which is quite limited. The mind likes to see things how it would like it to be, against the truth. When Foley had his try correctly disallowed in the first test Cheiker couldn’t believe it. It was a try in his mind. His mind just wanted it to be that way. That is weakness because you’re removed from the truth. How can you execute a perfect plan when the landscape you see is an effective illusion?

                The ego then crept into the Australian team. Instead of taking three points they went for the try. They were almost puffing themselves up like one of those deep sea fish. The fish do this to scare their preditor. The ego in humans do this to try and cover a weakness. Unconsciously or not.

                Had Australia been more with their essence and knew their strength they may have realised that the three points were there and should be taken. And also use the time to reassess. But as they had been pushed around a little they wanted to show their attitude and in doing so they showed their ego, their weakness.

      • June 21st 2016 @ 10:22am
        Timbo (L) said | June 21st 2016 @ 10:22am | ! Report

        I am with Johnny Boy – In Principle anyway, the execution needs a bit of a tweak (Daveski)..
        Hindsight is 20-20,
        Yes, the WB’s should have potted every penalty on offer. Forcing the Poms to score, That opens the play up for opportunistic turnovers.

        Cheik needs to be looking for players with a full bag of tricks. A blowtorch, a lug wrench and a Jeweler’s screwdriver,

        There were any number of scoring opportunities not seen and not taken. A bit of variety could have blown the game wide open.
        I am not delusional, in this dream scenario, England could well have shut that down also.

        There is much talk about plying 2x 7’s, but What about the poker hand with 4x 13’s – Karevi, Kuridrani, Folau, and Horne. A bag full of lug wrenches. In international rugby you need a Royal Flush to win.

        Q. Cooper, Beal, Hunt. 1 dimensional league style play. chip and chase, sure we need that tool in the tool box, but used sparingly. I watched Izzy fake a step, fake a kick and then run straight. Even I knew that was what he was going to do, the opposition didn’t even flinch. We need a player or 2 that can keep the opposition guessing and uses all 3 skills when they are best applied.

        We need an AAC style blowtorch and a Gitau style play maker to compliment the Lug wrenches.
        The pairing of Morahan and DHP sharing 14 and 15 is promising and goes a little way to address this. Karevi can have the oversubscribed 13 Lug Wrench spot
        This would put Izzy on the wing more suited to his playing style. This leaves the play making void for 10 and 12..
        Lets give CLLFa turn @ 10. Debrasini is real alternative 10 with a bit of size, CLLF to 12 and kicking duties, .

        There is no ethical reason why Gill is not Number 7.
        Gill is a line out jumper, a ball carrier and an effective scavenger, Hooper has zero of these critical #7 skills, that alone makes Gill a better utility and on par or better than the absentee Pocock. An 80 minute heart and a drive to get involved, attempt the hard tackles, not just the easy ones Sure, he won’t be eligible next year but right now we need to plug holes and bail water, not play violins on the deck.
        /End Rant

        • Roar Guru

          June 21st 2016 @ 12:58pm
          ThugbyFan said | June 21st 2016 @ 12:58pm | ! Report

          So you are advocating moving DHP from wing to fullback and the current fullback Izzy, to the wing. I cannot understand for what reason or purpose does that serve?

          Add the fact the DHP was so bloody awful at catching high balls in the 1st half that the Poms were deliberately kicking to him rather than Folou. It was so bad that near the 35th minute, the Poms kicked towards DHP standing back, Izzy was having none of that anymore and raced 25 m, leapt in the air almost knocking DHP out of the way, caught it and ran another 20 m in traffic. True that DHP made some good runs in traffic in the 2nd half and kicked a couple of good long balls, but he put his team under terrible pressure in the 1st half with wayward catching.

          And you wanna put that bloke at fb?

          But sadly you are dead right about L.Gill. With the available makeup of this team Gill should start at #7 and bring M.Hooper’s skills in the last quarter. M.Hooper is a fabulous footballer, but I would only start M.Hooper (and I say now I am a rabid Tahs fan) in a test match if you had 3 or 4 tall lineout merchants in your team and big #6 and #8’s both capable of destroying breakdowns and hurting runs through the opposition. Even then Hooper should be in the thick of the action in defence.

          • June 21st 2016 @ 2:23pm
            The Sheriff said | June 21st 2016 @ 2:23pm | ! Report

            The reason is simple: playing players in their own positions.
            Izzy was and is a winger; DHP is a fullback; Kerevi is an O/S centre.
            Gill is a #7 and a talented one to boot.

            • June 21st 2016 @ 3:31pm
              Markus said | June 21st 2016 @ 3:31pm | ! Report

              Folau has never played on the wing in Super Rugby, and only played a small number of games for the Wallabies as a winger. I’m pretty sure you’ll find that Folau has actually played more games at fullback in Super Rugby than Haylett-Petty has.

              Folau has been great under the high ball the last 2 tests. Haylett-Petty has shown atrocious high ball judgement and feet for hands.

      • June 21st 2016 @ 10:23am
        Boomeranga said | June 21st 2016 @ 10:23am | ! Report

        Anyone have a theory on why we are struggling to produce good wingers?

        • June 21st 2016 @ 10:34am
          kingplaymaker said | June 21st 2016 @ 10:34am | ! Report

          Yes here’s a theory:

          Nemani Nadolo is kicked out of the Waratahs by Michael Foley and goes to play for Fiji

          JOC having been punished by being sent away from Australia, is kept out there despite being 25

          Chris Sautia is badly coached at the Reds and not chosen by Cheika

          Naiyaravoro is left out of the 23

          Nabuli is left out of the 23

          That’s a theory for why wings aren’t being ‘produced’.

          • Roar Guru

            June 21st 2016 @ 10:44am
            Train Without A Station said | June 21st 2016 @ 10:44am | ! Report

            Nadolo was not kicked out of the Waratahs by Foley.

            Nadolo had left before Foley even started at head coach.

            You say Chris F-Sautia isn’t a winger. Now he is?

            • June 21st 2016 @ 10:48am
              kingplaymaker said | June 21st 2016 @ 10:48am | ! Report

              Not naturally no, but he is almost superhumanly sublime in the position in comparison to Horne, and at least offers something in attack. James O’Connor isn’t actually a wing but is talented enough to play better than specialist wings in the position, and the same is true of Sautia, and certainly in comparison to the abominable Horne.

              Nadolo didn’t leave before Foley was in charge, as Foley said that Nadolo wasn’t given a chance because Mitchell and Turner held the starting spots and no one was allowed to take their place at any stage.

              • Roar Guru

                June 21st 2016 @ 11:00am
                Train Without A Station said | June 21st 2016 @ 11:00am | ! Report

                When Foley took over as coach, Nadolo was already in Europe. Foley was an assistant to Chris Hickey when Nadolo was at the Waratahs. He played for Bourgoin in D2 in the 2010/2011 season.

                Foley’s first year as head coach was the 2011 season.

              • June 21st 2016 @ 1:26pm
                Marc Johno said | June 21st 2016 @ 1:26pm | ! Report

                Foley started coaching the Tahs in 2012

              • June 21st 2016 @ 11:22am
                kingplaymaker said | June 21st 2016 @ 11:22am | ! Report

                I remember a quote from Foley on the subject clearly. Maybe he in some way was directly choosing him.

              • Roar Guru

                June 21st 2016 @ 11:42am
                Train Without A Station said | June 21st 2016 @ 11:42am | ! Report

                As I have demonstrated, the time lines don’t match.

                Perhaps you don’t remember it as clearly as you like to think you do.

              • June 21st 2016 @ 11:26am
                Daveski said | June 21st 2016 @ 11:26am | ! Report

                Sublimely superhuman. I like the phrase, though it’s total fairytale stuff.

            • June 21st 2016 @ 11:44am
              ken said | June 21st 2016 @ 11:44am | ! Report

              TWAS mate, you say some sensible stuff , but in all seriuosness, if you are defending Horne or don’t like CFS you havn`t been watching closely for a while, CFS was average yes ,but the last couple of weeks he has been great.. Anyway I`m with KPM on this ..

              Horne is a centre/winger and CFS is a winger/centre. CFS is 22 and has an upside ( it`s called talent)..

              Horne has had so many chances to nail down a wing spot and has continaually failed.

              He has no upside at 27..( No talent )

              I don`t really don’t care who Cheika chucks in at wing, but it must not be Rob Horne..

              • June 21st 2016 @ 1:03pm
                Not Bothered said | June 21st 2016 @ 1:03pm | ! Report

                And dont forget, Horne is from NSW and CFS is from QLD.
                Right Ken?

              • June 21st 2016 @ 2:04pm
                Akari said | June 21st 2016 @ 2:04pm | ! Report

                I’d like to see CFS play at in/outside centre at super rugby before being given a chance at test level. He’s got all the skills to succeed and pace too. I was critical of his play last year but he seems to have grown up and a better player/winger this year.

              • June 21st 2016 @ 3:46pm
                ken said | June 21st 2016 @ 3:46pm | ! Report

                Not Bothered, tell me Hornes strengths ? What`s Roberts run meteres, defenders beaten ,tackles completed and missed in the last two tests ?….

                I know he didn’t score any tries punish any pommies in tackles or gain any meteres with his boot, so i`d love to hear what he contributes to the team ..

                Thanks..

              • June 21st 2016 @ 6:17pm
                Not Bothered said | June 21st 2016 @ 6:17pm | ! Report

                Well when CFS is good enough to make the squad we can compare.

                Until then you can watch him and all the other players that ‘deserve’ selection at the Reds.

              • June 21st 2016 @ 4:49pm
                Seb V said | June 21st 2016 @ 4:49pm | ! Report

                Spot on Ken, Horne is a waste of a player when we are on attack. Can’t kick, Can’t pass, slow for a winger, average in contact (how easily was he shown up in this area by 2 Test rookie DHP) He can really only tackle – at least he’s good at that I suppose. Chuck in Morahan already (given he’s the only available option).

              • Roar Guru

                June 21st 2016 @ 10:32pm
                Train Without A Station said | June 21st 2016 @ 10:32pm | ! Report

                I’m not defending Horne.

                I wish there was somebody better, but due to injury there isn’t.

                I’m merely saying KPM has defended CFS’s shocking performances in the past saying he’s not a winger and the coaches playing him there are the reason he isn’t playing well.

                Now he’s advocating the same player be selected for the wallabies… On the wing.

              • June 21st 2016 @ 10:37pm
                kingplaymaker said | June 21st 2016 @ 10:37pm | ! Report

                Well you are defending him then, by saying there’s no one better i.e. he’s the best available.

                This is to state that Horne is better than Naiyaravoro and Nabuli from the squad, and Sautia and JOC from outside it.

                Which all told is a pretty big defence of Horne.

              • Roar Guru

                June 22nd 2016 @ 7:16am
                Train Without A Station said | June 22nd 2016 @ 7:16am | ! Report

                JOC is not available.

                I’d have Tomane over Horne in a heartbeat. Speight too.

                Both are injured.

            • June 21st 2016 @ 7:14pm
              Bakkies said | June 21st 2016 @ 7:14pm | ! Report

              It’s been an issue for sometime. The only natural wingers the Wallabies have had are Damien Smith, Ben Tune and Mitchell. Rathbone, Mortlock and Jason Little have played on the wing mainly to get them in to the team. Roff played centres and full back, Campo also played at fullback.

              • June 22nd 2016 @ 4:10am
                riddler said | June 22nd 2016 @ 4:10am | ! Report

                very true bakkies…but it is strange that we have lost our wingers.. never was a problem when you think back atleast to the 80’s, with the moons, griggs, williams, snozzas etc..

                since tune retired we have not had an out and out winger.. more makesshift haphazard types..

                how i miss the old in and aways, swerves..

      • June 21st 2016 @ 12:13pm
        Seeujim said | June 21st 2016 @ 12:13pm | ! Report

        I thought it before the first game, I said it before the second and now I am sure Moore should not be captain and TPN should start as hooker.

      • June 21st 2016 @ 1:48pm
        Brizvegas said | June 21st 2016 @ 1:48pm | ! Report

        Brett the reverse could be said in that Australia have given England a massive leg up , well to 2nd ranking anyhow. How? By continuing to not take points on offer or by not changing the angles of attack or by not implementing the chip or kick through the line , not keeping discipline or not having a bench that changes the game Come on Wallabies win the third game otherwise it will be a long and not so good 2016 season. Hey just a question do the Wallabies play England on EOYT???

        • June 21st 2016 @ 7:23pm
          Bakkies said | June 21st 2016 @ 7:23pm | ! Report

          Yeah it’s a Grand Slam tour

          • June 21st 2016 @ 10:34pm
            Pete said | June 21st 2016 @ 10:34pm | ! Report

            So the Wobblies could go the season without a win

            • June 22nd 2016 @ 4:15am
              pete and paul said | June 22nd 2016 @ 4:15am | ! Report

              highly possible and more likely probable

              • June 22nd 2016 @ 9:57am
                ken said | June 22nd 2016 @ 9:57am | ! Report

                Yep agree, unless chieka gets rid of the passengers…We wont win a game

      • June 21st 2016 @ 9:00pm
        Chris R said | June 21st 2016 @ 9:00pm | ! Report

        I couldn’t agree more, we need a true number 7, no Pocock so it must be either Gill or McMahon let him play as a 7. Australia will not win consistently with Hooper at 7 unless the rest of the forwards are absolute world class or as what happened at WC, Pocock was in blinding form.

        • June 22nd 2016 @ 11:24am
          Browny said | June 22nd 2016 @ 11:24am | ! Report

          I’m coming to the belief that you don’t necessarily need one designated pilferer and that a more effective strategy is to have a pack where 1-8 can all do their share or the work. I don’t think we’re getting enough out of 1-6 and we don’t really have any 8s.

          Our issue isn’t that we didn’t field a “true number 7”, or reading in between the lines that Michael Hooper once again started at openside, but rather that our pack as a whole didn’t function as it should. Let’s remember that the DIY Player Ratings from that second test had him as the best forward (with only Fardy and McMahon joining him with a ‘pass mark’ of above 5) and while I can’t the results from the first test myself and many others had him as best on ground for us. Liam Gill, George Smith or even a fit David Pocock in his place wouldn’t have changed the result of the last two tests.

    • June 21st 2016 @ 6:18am
      MH01 said | June 21st 2016 @ 6:18am | ! Report

      Brett, Australia have dropped to 4th in the world.

      Let’s see if any lessons have indeed been learned. I suspect they have not and cheika will go with basically the same team this weekend. England could do us a favour if we are prepared to learn from these looses.

      I expect more of the same from the wallabies , the wildcard is what Eddie does, and is he willing to experiment and give players a chance, or go for the 3-0 kill.

      • June 21st 2016 @ 12:11pm
        Not Bothered said | June 21st 2016 @ 12:11pm | ! Report

        Cheks got the backline wrong imo.
        Not the forward pack.
        The tactics of playing the flankers wide had mixed results but posession was not the problem.
        Perhaps a guy like Housten instead of McMahon could have made a difference.
        Aus has a bit of a lack of depth and its quite difficult to find the right balance.

        • June 21st 2016 @ 1:13pm
          Richard said | June 21st 2016 @ 1:13pm | ! Report

          Yep, agree Punt Foley and Phipps and the centres may see the ball more….

          • June 21st 2016 @ 3:54pm
            Col in paradise said | June 21st 2016 @ 3:54pm | ! Report

            Totally agree….to many Tahs..and Foley is out of form for about 12 months…and Phipps is one dimensional and slow as a wet week …..you can read which way the ball is going to go by a mile and the England team just line up – move up and crunch….

          • June 22nd 2016 @ 11:29am
            Browny said | June 22nd 2016 @ 11:29am | ! Report

            Ok, so we drop Phipps and Foley. What does that leave us with? The inexperienced Frisby and an out of form Leali’ifano starting before we finish the game with the ‘youthful’ Joe Powell and…. um… Jono Lance? Has he recovered from injury yet? Or perhaps theRebels’ pairing of Stirzacker and Debraczini?

            The line “too many *insert australian franchise here*” when talking about NATIONAL team selection just screams of unfounded state bias, the sort of tin foil hat stuff that really takes any credibility out of what they say. A little like if someone says “I’m not racist, but…” and your initial reaction is “oh, here we go” as you can guarantee there’s about to be some filth/garbage pouring out of their mouth.

            • June 22nd 2016 @ 12:04pm
              Col in paradise said | June 22nd 2016 @ 12:04pm | ! Report

              Phipps for sure has to go…go with the youth…take the risk..we have nothing to loose now…but actually I just think Cheika has been over rated and it is now showing against a well coached and strong side…

        • June 21st 2016 @ 2:06pm
          Akari said | June 21st 2016 @ 2:06pm | ! Report

          I thought that the forwards needed Skelton to either break the defence or draw in 2-3 defenders within 5-10 metres of the try line.

          • June 22nd 2016 @ 4:12am
            riddler said | June 22nd 2016 @ 4:12am | ! Report

            foley is not the problem.. the piggies are where we are struggling.. the pommies have worked out that our forawrds are no great shakes, so commit very few, and that our halfback just shovels..

            makes the defence coaches job very, very easy..

            kiwis must be licking their lips at looking at us play at the moment

            • June 22nd 2016 @ 4:16am
              pete and paul said | June 22nd 2016 @ 4:16am | ! Report

              no they are not licking their lips….its something they don’t do…

    • June 21st 2016 @ 6:37am
      Neil Back said | June 21st 2016 @ 6:37am | ! Report

      It certainly does have the feel of a deck chair shuffle on the Titanic. I’d never normally write a Wallaby side off but if England come as ready to play as they claim they will for the third test, you have to worry.

      I’ve heard a lot of ‘Australia played all the rugby’ this week and last. I’m really not sure what people think England have been playing.

      Btw, I believe Australia are now ranked fourth not third.

      • Roar Guru

        June 21st 2016 @ 10:30am
        pformagg said | June 21st 2016 @ 10:30am | ! Report

        Exactly, we haven’t seen the attack that England can give. Its been defense so far, and if England are serious about being NO.1, then their attack needs to equal their defense, and that is a scary opposition if they can do it. Honestly, can’t wait for the first England v Allbacks game. Two teams, with excellent coaches, and talent.

        • June 21st 2016 @ 10:37am
          kingplaymaker said | June 21st 2016 @ 10:37am | ! Report

          Jones would struggle even with the attacking backline he chose not to select, as it would still be weaker than the AB’s. But he would have a formidable, bullying pack on the other hand of the kind that is the one thing to trouble the All Blacks at times.

          • June 21st 2016 @ 12:50pm
            Not Bothered said | June 21st 2016 @ 12:50pm | ! Report

            What attacking backline?
            Perhaps Care at 9?
            The English backline is one of the best in the world and as it stands I only see 2 or 3 teams having better backlines NZ being 1.

            Before the last test you were saying their backline was weak in defence!
            Nek minnut.

            Are you convinced DHP might start on the wing yet?

          • June 21st 2016 @ 2:12pm
            Faith said | June 21st 2016 @ 2:12pm | ! Report

            There is quite a lot of false logic in regard to what the Aus vs Eng matchup would mean for an NZ vs Eng game. Like kingplaymaker says Eng rely on a bullying forward pack – I’m not sure whether this same forward pack would have the same impact on Retallick, Franks, Read, Kaino and Coles. Also, England are Aussie’s boggie team. And Aus is NZ’s bogey team though everyone always thinks its France. NZ can play 3 kinds of rugby – they can play a kicking game, a brutal forwards game and passing/pace game. This Aussie side only play a pace/passing game. I am not sure how well this Eng game would cope with a switch between the three at all times especially a kicking game. Or a game with a lot of offloads. Aus only has two gamebreakers – Folau and Hooper. NZ has B Smith, Naholo, Read, A Smith, Barrett and Coles. Eng would just not be able to watch all of them
            at the same time.

            • June 21st 2016 @ 10:37pm
              Pete said | June 21st 2016 @ 10:37pm | ! Report

              Aust is not NZ bogie team… They play too often and the ABs win too often

              • Roar Guru

                June 21st 2016 @ 10:49pm
                taylorman said | June 21st 2016 @ 10:49pm | ! Report

                If there is one recently its oz. 3 wins and two draws since 2010. SA have two wins though SA did have the three wins in 2009. France used to be, but have dropped off as have SA a bit.

          • June 21st 2016 @ 2:14pm
            Beezlebub said | June 21st 2016 @ 2:14pm | ! Report

            Trouble the AB’s is this in your dreams?

          • June 22nd 2016 @ 4:18am
            pete and paul said | June 22nd 2016 @ 4:18am | ! Report

            ABs have played many ‘bully’ packs, that includes England and more often SA…but it isn’t brawn that wins games, it is brains and nous….something that appears to be lacking in both AUS and ENGLAND oh and SA

      • June 21st 2016 @ 1:30pm
        AJ said | June 21st 2016 @ 1:30pm | ! Report

      • June 21st 2016 @ 2:13pm
        Akari said | June 21st 2016 @ 2:13pm | ! Report

        May I suggest that England has been playing boring rugby as usual, hence, the lack of possible interest from the “people”, Neil.

        • June 21st 2016 @ 9:29pm
          bloodypom said | June 21st 2016 @ 9:29pm | ! Report

          @Akari

          I think it’s called winning rugby

      • June 21st 2016 @ 2:19pm
        Jake said | June 21st 2016 @ 2:19pm | ! Report

        “Iโ€™m really not sure what people think England have been playing.”

        Enlighten us then. Cause it ain’t rugby.

      • Roar Guru

        June 21st 2016 @ 3:28pm
        ThugbyFan said | June 21st 2016 @ 3:28pm | ! Report

        So who is the 3rd placed side in the IRB rankings? Scotland? RSA? Japan? Ireland or Argentina?

        This England side have made fools of the Aussies with a committed, talented well coached side willing to play test rugby and who showed everyone on Saturday that they do have guts and will never throw in the towel. You have to congratulate them, that 2nd place is no fluke.

        At the same time, questions need to be asked by or to the WB coaching staff about some of the tactics by the WB in both games. Mass panic changes should not be the go, but the game plan certainly needs a tweek with some variations thrown in. Plan A just doesn’t cut it against very good teams such as England, AB and likely SB also.

        Anyway, M.Cheika and S.Larkham need to read the Roar all week, infuse the learned suggestions by us Roar geniuses (genii??) into the WB team and I’ll be there on Saturday cheering the WB to a 14 point victory. ๐Ÿ™‚

        • June 21st 2016 @ 11:28pm
          MH01 said | June 21st 2016 @ 11:28pm | ! Report

          RSA

    • Roar Guru

      June 21st 2016 @ 6:41am
      taylorman said | June 21st 2016 @ 6:41am | ! Report

      Hi Brett, Yeah I think its going to be more of the same. Theres little to suggest the same side will do any better and those that said England couldnt get better are clearly reading from the wrong tea leaves.

      Not only did they get better, they ran a gameplan that had oz eating out of their hands.

      Theres no reason for Jones to experiment yet. For England its more about finding out how good this side can get before they start looking for ways to improve with the wider squad.

      For me the best chances for oz is for Cheika to give back the reigns to the run on side and let them take full responsibility for the outcome.

      He cant coach them out of this. Nor can he select them out of it because by now he’d be guessing, throwing rhe proverbial dart.

      Theres no easy solution. Its all uphill and Individuals must stand up and be counted. Their backs are to the wall and they must come out fighting.

      ‘Dead rubbers’ can be funny things though. Whether England can get up and do it when oz are far more desperate remains to be seen.

      • June 21st 2016 @ 7:26am
        soapit said | June 21st 2016 @ 7:26am | ! Report

        they ran a gameplan that had oz eating out of their hands

        very true tman. despit not leading by much you always felt england had so much advantage during that second half

      • June 21st 2016 @ 9:15am
        mania said | June 21st 2016 @ 9:15am | ! Report

        great article brett – enough making excuses as to why the loss happened. time for these players to step up and show some class.

        taylorman – “He cant coach them out of this.” d4m straight there. this is up to the players. whilst cheika takes full responsibility, the players he had faith in also have to show cajones and prove that they aren’t a bunch of deadbeats. if aus recover , learn from this and beat the English then they will be dangerous in the RC and they will all grow as players. this is a great opportunity for the WBs to grow , learn how to dig deep and stand strong …if they take it with both hands

        • Roar Guru

          June 21st 2016 @ 10:35pm
          Train Without A Station said | June 21st 2016 @ 10:35pm | ! Report

          Cheika taking full responsibility was a crock of Sh–.

          He’s blamed the players for not following the alleged game plan, and taken responsibility for not relaying it forcefully enough.

    • June 21st 2016 @ 6:56am
      AlexG said | June 21st 2016 @ 6:56am | ! Report

      As other have said, 4th not 3rd.

      I don’t know if Wallabies will change anything, but I can think of things they should use this test to improve:

      Like the way the forward pods work, more flexible, changing the point of attack. There’s nothing wrong with the concept of plenty of sideways ball movement IF the forwards are laying the foundation in the first few phases.

      Like the pick-and-go – there wasn’t much of it in the last match. Whatever your game plan, there are times when the forwards just need to run a few phases of these to give the rest a chance to settle down.

      Like kick-chasing – there is no point kicking at all unless the team drills in who will kick and in what circumstances, who will chase and who prepares for the next stage. Nobody seemed to know last Saturday night.

      • June 21st 2016 @ 2:14pm
        OJP said | June 21st 2016 @ 2:14pm | ! Report

        ‘Like the pick-and-go โ€“ there wasnโ€™t much of it in the last match’

        actually I dont recall a single pick and go from the Wallabies forward pack (stand to be corrected); even Matt Burke called for it during his commentary…

        If the players cant work it out for themselves, isnt it the role of the ‘Water Boy’ to pass along the coaches messages during the instances where the props pretend to be injured so everyone can have a bit of a breather ?

        • June 21st 2016 @ 7:33pm
          Bakkies said | June 21st 2016 @ 7:33pm | ! Report

          You don’t pick and go one out against a Sarries like defence. Billy Vunipola will latch on to it as he has is the best pilferer in the English pack and difficult to shift once he is over the ball.

          • June 22nd 2016 @ 2:45am
            OJP said | June 22nd 2016 @ 2:45am | ! Report

            so thats it ? Because Billy V can / might / will create a turnover you dont back your skills and try it ? Even if he is super amazing at winning these contests, surely there must be some opportunities to try during the match when he’s not at the ruck perhaps…. or are you telling me the defensive pattern involves him marking up at every ruck ?

            I’d hope that the pick and go wasnt one out in any case; why cant the ‘pillars’ of the ruck or the ‘cleaners’ become the support players for whomever is picking and going ?

            Final questions; Sarries like defence is a pattern, Billy V is a player, so can I pick and go against a Sarries defence without Billy V in it and similarly, what about the pick and go if Billy V is playing, but the Sarries defence isnt being employed ?

            ** Agree that Billy V is difficult to shift once over the ball; would genuinely be interested in further explanation about your contention about the pick and go … I might learn something!

    • Roar Rookie

      June 21st 2016 @ 6:57am
      Toulouse Lautrec said | June 21st 2016 @ 6:57am | ! Report

      Clinical? Not so sure, England let in 5 tries in game one and were kept in the game on a landslide if penalties. Game two agreed they decided that Australia was toothless in close quarters (McMahon seriously?) so fanned out the defensive line and soaked up the tackles. One of two line breaks or Australia getting the ball over the line once in that mountain of possession on their try line could’ve made things interesting ( yeah I know uncle is my aunt blah blah) but clinical, um, let’s just say the cards fell their way and made them look a lot better than it appears. What did we see from their attack? What would’ve happened if they needed to chase the game?
      I agree also the straight running attack in game two was poor, game one we had cut out passes, inside runners, wrap arounds, where did that go?
      I think weed doing the best we can with the resources we have and the gap between teams ( darkness aside) isn’t that much.

      • June 21st 2016 @ 7:46am
        Dave_S said | June 21st 2016 @ 7:46am | ! Report

        Agreed, a lot of babies being tossed out with the bathwater. There is no way England willingly gambled on making that many tackles and getting that many 50/50 penalties. WBs played below their best, England defended stoutly and that’s about it. Sort out 8 and 9 and take more penalty kicks at the right times and the WBs are a quite different side.

        • June 21st 2016 @ 8:07am
          Antoni said | June 21st 2016 @ 8:07am | ! Report

          Agreed, England simply played a very smart game plan that suited the conditions. They are being hailed as the greatest and we are being derided as completely useless chumps. I don’t believe that this English side is really so great, they look quite limited in their attacking ability for a start.
          How little faith many have. Stop listening to the negative on here. ‘Moving the deck chairs on the Titanic’ is Brett writing lines for Eddie?
          Our players are good enough, it’s the game plan and selections that need attention. Changes should be minimal. A proper no 8 is all I would change. Give these guys a decent game plan, mix it up a little, try some moves and some decent kicks, take the points, play a traditional game and the win will come.

          • Roar Guru

            June 21st 2016 @ 8:23am
            Sam Taulelei said | June 21st 2016 @ 8:23am | ! Report

            Antoni

            Your criticisms of England’s limited attack is unintentionally also an indictment of the Wallabies play given their predictability and ineffectiveness.

            It’s not time to throw out the bath water but this narrative that the Wallabies played all the rugby and England didn’t do much on attack just defended stoutly needs to change.

            • June 21st 2016 @ 8:56am
              kingplaymaker said | June 21st 2016 @ 8:56am | ! Report

              ‘Your criticisms of Englandโ€™s limited attack is unintentionally also an indictment of the Wallabies play given their predictability and ineffectiveness.’

              This is the disturbing thing, as Jones said over the first years he would turn the team from the previous coach’s team into his own, slowly. He in fact sent the A team attacking backline on a B team tour to South Africa, and the best attacking players Cipriani, Ashton, Rokoguduni, Eastmond, aren’t in the team.

              What would have been the result if a high quality attacking backline had been on board in Jones’ team?

              • June 21st 2016 @ 9:20am
                Lostintokyo said | June 21st 2016 @ 9:20am | ! Report

                Jones does have a coaching philosophy which is adaptable. When he coached Japan he said he was going to play with ball speed, and when he took on the England gig he signalled out he wanted mongrel in the Poms play, particularly at the breakdown. And he delivered in both.

              • Roar Guru

                June 21st 2016 @ 9:22am
                Rugby Fan said | June 21st 2016 @ 9:22am | ! Report

                You keep saying that but it still isn’t true.

                Jonathan Joseph is one of the best attacking centres we’ve had for a while – who is better than him in South Africa?

                Ford, Watson, Slade and Daly are all better than the list you give.

                The only guy I’d definitely have in Australia right now is scrum half Robson – who doesn’t even feature in your selection. The other player who looked impressive before his injury is full back Hale, who also gets ignored by you.

                Cipriani and Rokoduguni showed up well in South Africa but I don’t think they are clearly better players. If Nowell is injured, then I probably would prefer to see Roko over Yarde but that’s Jones’ call.

              • June 21st 2016 @ 9:32am
                kingplaymaker said | June 21st 2016 @ 9:32am | ! Report

                Agree lostintokyo, but it still means that at the moment he’s still playing with half a team. Add in a good attacking backline and his team would be formidable.

                He said at the beginning of his tenure that he’d slowly change everything, but take his time doing so.

                He apparently assailed Lancaster in the media before the World Cup for leaving out Cipriani and Ashton, and then didn’t choose them himself. This is cunning Jones. He may well be establishing an extremely steady and solid structure before integrating flashier players.

              • June 21st 2016 @ 9:38am
                Browny said | June 21st 2016 @ 9:38am | ! Report

                If Jones brought the Cipriani led “A-Team”? Maybe 1-1 or 2-0 to Australia as their gameplan is constructed around incredible defense, good tactical decisions and patience to make the most of opportunities when they arise. I think it’s safe to say the “high quality attacking backline’ that played in South Africa would have let in a few more tries…

              • June 21st 2016 @ 9:49am
                bruce bridges said | June 21st 2016 @ 9:49am | ! Report

                Roko I agree with you should have been one the tour he has everything pace power a step and is a lethal finisher. Robson I rate as our best scrum half plays for the Wasps who probably had the best back line the AP.
                None of the rest would get into the current squad. Some of the forwards will come up a Borthwick’s persons of Interest list though.

              • June 21st 2016 @ 9:52am
                kingplaymaker said | June 21st 2016 @ 9:52am | ! Report

                Not sure why. More backline penetration added to the powerhouse forward pack would have been very destructive. Even a defensive and kicking strategy doesn’t prevent a backline from attacking well when it happens. That may be what Jones has up his sleeve.

            • June 21st 2016 @ 9:07am
              Dave said | June 21st 2016 @ 9:07am | ! Report

              Let’s face it England had no attack at all, the literally kicked the ball every time they touched it. This turned out to be very effective for them.

              I also think Australia’s attack out wide was ineffective because England very rarely committed any players to the ruck and thus had lots of defenders spread across the field. The Australian forwards should have picked up and ran directly from the ruck way more often.

              And it might be highly controversial but I think Polota-Nau should start ahead of Stephen Moore. Moore is captain and a legend but Polota-Nau is a way, way better hooker. I have watched dozens of games for the Wallabies and the Waratahs where the scrum is being destroyed, then he comes on and we immediately start winning the scrums (which happened in the latest match, penalty Wallabies on his first scrum) – he is a devastating hooker in the scrum – and the first scrum is so important because whoever dominates the first one usually dominates all the scrums. Polota-Nau is also an extremely strong runner with the ball and a fearsome tackler. It would be tough on Moore but Polota-Nau has to start if we want to win.

              • June 21st 2016 @ 9:34am
                taylorman said | June 21st 2016 @ 9:34am | ! Report

                Just cannot see Cheika dropping his appointed captain for the series. Its now about credibility. If Cheika publicly takes responsibility for the loss then he should just as easily stand down as much as dropping his captain.

                Both had a job, and both failed to secure the wins they needed.

                Although I think Moore should be stood down, it would be highly unusual for a coach to first admit his own failings then make the captain the scapegoat.

                for that reason he MUST back his captain to finish the job. To drop him now would be a debacle and would send panic messages to the English if they havent already got them.

              • June 21st 2016 @ 9:37am
                kingplaymaker said | June 21st 2016 @ 9:37am | ! Report

                taylorman not sure I can see Cheika changing much. He doesn’t seem to think there is anything misguided in the project now, just that a few things aren’t being executed well enough. He has already said he won’t change style, which feels like him saying he won’t change too much in general.

                I wouldn’t expect big selection changes.

                Hard to see him dropping Moore or Hooper, or Mcmahon one of his favoured players, or Horne his vice-captain. Those are the players whose changing might make a difference, but it’s hard to see how he would change them.

              • June 21st 2016 @ 11:35am
                Old Bugger said | June 21st 2016 @ 11:35am | ! Report

                TM

                Just a minor point about Cheiks making a scapegoat of Moore…..I’m still trying to get over how he tossed Simmons, under the bus, after T1. I think Cheiks is quite capable, of doing the same with Moore if, it means saving credibility.

                And, that’s the question……will dropping Moore, save credibility?? More to the point, who’s credibility will be saved…..the WBs, Moore’s or Cheiks???

              • June 21st 2016 @ 1:13pm
                Ngati Tumutumu said | June 21st 2016 @ 1:13pm | ! Report

                Hey OB I thought that was strange too, he didn’t need to do that. I don’t like kicking people when there down so will not comment on what I think of Chieka as a coach. I expect the Wallabies to bounce back sooner or later, if they don’t win this 3rd test it could be a hard year for the wallabies and their fans. And it has become apparent that lack of Super form for the Wallabies is quite a big problem. You never want to lose a series 3 nil, but you now have an opportunity to try a proper number 8, I would personally move HP? to fullback mainly for his boot at first but i see him developing into a match winner such are his skills. has anyone thought of playing Devacine? at 12? He is big can take the line on is a play maker and has a monster boot, I could see him and Foley causing defences a lot of trouble. I wish you Wallaby fans the best your boys will be back, it all starts with attitude, and the Wallabies have always been dangerous to me when their backs are against the wall.

              • Roar Guru

                June 21st 2016 @ 4:00pm
                taylorman said | June 21st 2016 @ 4:00pm | ! Report

                OB I think the selections between T1 and T2 were actually the moving of the deck chairs. He was guessing and as we’ve found really had no idea or control over what eventuated. So I think any changes were about his best effort to do what he could for the team to win the series, legitimately. So under that premise, anyone is expendable following a loss.

                T2 to T3 is different. He came out and took responsibility for the loss, communication being one of the reasons. And now the series is lost. For me to drop the series captain after that declaration would be farcical, and lacking integrity. And there is no clear player who can step up as a test match captain despite the names being mentioned…TPN, Folau etc.

                What suggests they would captain the side better than Moore who has considerable more experience at the level? What would he have left if he dropped Moore, backed TPN, and lost the test for similar reasons?

          • June 21st 2016 @ 8:58am
            AlanKC said | June 21st 2016 @ 8:58am | ! Report

            To be fair Antoni the “completely useless chumps” line is well deserved for at least two reasons: 1) Not taking points when they were on offer and 2) Not changing a plan on the run when the plan wasn’t working.

        • June 21st 2016 @ 8:23am
          soapit said | June 21st 2016 @ 8:23am | ! Report

          disagree to an extent. 1st test yes we should have won but 2nd test they may have gambled but did so stacking the odds in their favour by kicking deep at aevery opportunity knowing wallabies would have to run all the way back without a decent kicing game, backing their defence to hold long enough for an error.

          they could have still lost but it was a sound plan giving them a good chance at victory.

          • June 21st 2016 @ 8:40am
            Mace 22 said | June 21st 2016 @ 8:40am | ! Report

            Gee it’s 2003 all over again.

            • June 21st 2016 @ 12:25pm
              soapit said | June 21st 2016 @ 12:25pm | ! Report

              dont really see how tbh

              • June 21st 2016 @ 1:01pm
                Not Bothered said | June 21st 2016 @ 1:01pm | ! Report

                “We should have won”.

                Well no, England should have and did.

                It makes no sense to say We should have done this and that” when England could say the same thing, ie. “We should have got more ball”.

                But they didnt and your team didnt and England won because they were better.

              • June 21st 2016 @ 5:54pm
                soapit said | June 21st 2016 @ 5:54pm | ! Report

                chill out nb, please try and remember that many words can have different meanings so you should try and avoid focusing on one word too much over all the others around it and assuming the intended meaning is the same as the single one you can apparently think of

                all thts being said is 1st game was a match they actually plyed well for large sections of the game yet still lost on top of some periods/moments of very bad play and therefore a very big missed opportunity. . 2nd game england were much more clearly better didnt offer as much of a chance and oz never really got going. in a tight series you cant afford to lose the games where you are able to play pretty well like they did in game 1 and once you miss the opportunity ur up against it because the form will likely see saw aginst you. hence you should make sure you win the gmes you are plying well in (as a minimum)

                and even if i were to say we deserved to win in the 1st game thats not like 03 where england were clearly the best in the world an oz probably not even number 2

                im sorry if none of this makes sense to you but ive tried the best i can to explain it clearly

              • June 21st 2016 @ 6:31pm
                Not Bothered said | June 21st 2016 @ 6:31pm | ! Report

                I understand you think Aus should have won.
                I know England should have and did and Australia had to play better to beat Eng. But what happens if Eng played better also?
                Hmmmmm…so in the end Aus shouldnt have won and didnt and thats that.
                So to say Aus should have because of this or that is pointless because you could just as easily say Eng should have won by more if they had done this or that.

                Aus didnt win because they didnt play well enough to.
                So how can you say they should have?
                Just say Australia should have played better but didnt because thats true.

              • June 22nd 2016 @ 2:12am
                soapit said | June 22nd 2016 @ 2:12am | ! Report

                nb you obviously are only capable of a very simplistic level of discussion on this and the point I’m making requires ever so slightly more than that so I wont be continuing with you here,

                you cant say I didn’t try

          • Roar Guru

            June 21st 2016 @ 11:04am
            moaman said | June 21st 2016 @ 11:04am | ! Report

            soapit I believe Oz still could have won the 2nd Test had they taken both of those easy penalty kicks and drawn level.
            The weight of possession and territory would have been enough.By ceding that 6 point lead for so long they gave England a huge psychological boost and lift in morale…..and it proved enough to see them home.

            • June 21st 2016 @ 12:26pm
              soapit said | June 21st 2016 @ 12:26pm | ! Report

              yes ur probably right moa however i think in their mind they were having such difficulty making ground (again without a kicking game) there was a little doubt that they could get up field and win a penalty after kicking the first and having it kicked off deep

              • Roar Guru

                June 21st 2016 @ 4:11pm
                moaman said | June 21st 2016 @ 4:11pm | ! Report

                soapit You could be right mate; I haven’t rewatched the game but my impression was the Wallabies enjoyed a glut of possession and field-position.
                You could well be right though.

                At the time I thought a bit of complacency led them to spurn those two kickable penalties.
                I noted the ABs took the corner first chance they had a penalty but the circumstances were different;
                It was wide on the tramlines and Cruden’s middle name is not “deadeye” at present.Smart option I thought because I reckon it’s better to present a slightly dodgy kicker with an easy kick first up.

              • June 21st 2016 @ 10:12pm
                Percy P said | June 21st 2016 @ 10:12pm | ! Report

                Moaman, I thought there was a bit of method involved with kicking for the corner instead of taking easy on offer when awarded that penalty towards the end of the 1st 1/2, I think. The ref had just finished giving the poms one of his final warnings, presumably within earshot of the wallie decision makers, where he promised one of them a stint in the bin if one of them transgressed. So just maybe that’s why they chose the corner. It would have been hailed as a stroke of genius had it worked. All they had to do was get a maul happening. But alas…

              • June 21st 2016 @ 6:00pm
                soapit said | June 21st 2016 @ 6:00pm | ! Report

                i do kind of suspect hoopers a little bit too much of a mccw fanboy and wants to back his team the same way mccaw those famous times. if so he needs to realise its not just willpower and leadership that made them the right dcision for mccaw but the plyers he had to back his call up

                obviously all guessing their minds tho having said that we could quite easily have gotten a result by taking points at the time.

            • June 21st 2016 @ 1:17pm
              Ngati Tumutumu said | June 21st 2016 @ 1:17pm | ! Report

              Hey Moa do you think the NRC could be a reason for those type of decisions? It seems to me in the NRC due to the points structure that most captains in the league would make that same decision? So you have a bunch of leaders coming through that might be a little programmed to score try’s than to keep the scoreboard ticking over.

              • June 21st 2016 @ 9:56pm
                Boomeranga said | June 21st 2016 @ 9:56pm | ! Report

                I don’t think Moore or Hooper have played any NRC games.

            • Roar Guru

              June 21st 2016 @ 4:05pm
              moaman said | June 21st 2016 @ 4:05pm | ! Report

              Ngati Tumutumu Kia ora.
              I couldn’t comment on that mate–never seen any NRC matches.Basic common sense to go for corner if a) you are too far behind to do it in 3s or b) you are so far in front you are going for the jugular.
              Perhaps the Wallabies believed situation b) was applicable? ๐Ÿ˜‰

              • June 22nd 2016 @ 10:34am
                Ngati Tumutumu said | June 22nd 2016 @ 10:34am | ! Report

                Quite right Moa, In the first test I thought the decision was right take the points give yourself a chance to win. In the second they needed to accumulate points as the English defence was going to be hard to breakdown. It all comes to the top 1% in those situations you want your captain to be able to make the right decisions in those pressure moments. But It is always easy to make the right decision in hindsight I guess. I just come from the realm where accumulating points at every opportunity is the way to play the game.

        • June 21st 2016 @ 11:51am
          Hoqni said | June 21st 2016 @ 11:51am | ! Report

          Sort out 8, 9 and 10

          Frisby and CLL will be enough to bring stout Brumbies go forward with existing backline

    Explore:
    , , , ,