Wallabies win breaks Twickers drought

Ian, funny you should mention Simpson but I was getting changed in the gym a few weeks ago and Simpson waltzed in and got changed next to me. He doesn't look particularly athletic but he had a few good moments against Harlequins yesterday. He looks like the love child of Les Cusworth and Derek Quinnell.

Benjamin I think Bob McG has forgotten that England's No 9's through the period of England's dominance was the duo of Dawson/Bracken. I hope given time that Care and Ellis will be as effective, although I saw a very impressive young No 9 at Quins playing for Wasps today, Joe Simpson if he develops he could be very useful, i think he has another season in the U20's. Justin I waa at Twickenham yesterday and couldn't understand why there was some booing at the end it made no sense as England had been beaten fair and square. The only rational thougth was that some of the young kids in the crowd were frustrated as England had camped in the W's 22 for nearly 10 mins at the end of the game for no reward. The W's defence was immence.

Many good things in the game, but AAC is out of his depth at 15, and Ryan cross looks very one dimension. Never thought we would miss Barnes so much.

Bob, the English pack of 2007 was a rare combination picked solely to overwhelm teams physically. I am of the opinion that the 8 from Marseilles would have beaten the 03 pack both in general play and in the scrummage. It certainly wasn't a pack way past its best because it had never been selected before. Why would you mention Healey in the context of 10 man rugby? If England played 10 man rugby how could Healey have ever received the ball? Further, I think you forget the halycon days of Greenwood and Robinson.

England still dominated the Australia 8 in 2007. The problem with the 2007 game is that Australia actually tried to compete with England and were thus over-powered. Also, we have been terrible for the last five years and had to resort to 10 man rugby in 2007 because we couldn't play an expansive game. If we had been any good between 03 to 06 then we would have won more games.

Colin, Didn't mention 2005 - only reference was to RWC 2007. By then the English pack was way past its best. Any fair minded judge would acknowledge that England's pack dominated the International scene from RWC 2003 to 2006. Along with Wilkinson and Healy they were one of the better 10 man Rugby teams I can recollect over the past 50 years.

Colin, I'm not critical of Johnson - or more appropriately, Brian Smith - because a) he clearly has a long-term plan and b) because some of the games under Robinson and Ashton were so bad as to make me tearful. At least yesterday showed a team with new ambitions, my only issue is that the squad could have been a better mix of experience and inexperience. That wasn't the best pack in England so I'm sure that the 6N will be different however NZ and SA will test the tight five to the limit - unless of course changes are made. John Wells has a big week ahead of him. I do not think that SA are a good team but they have a strong defence and a tight five that should have the edge over yesterday's men. Anyway... it's all experience and something that the team will remember. As long as the England forwards hit their rucks and don't give away silly penalties then there is clear room for improvement.

Benjamin. oh I agree, but to say that we only looked better in the scrum in 2005 and 2007 because the scrum laws weren't applied properly is nonsense ( which what Bob is saying). Anyway, onwards and upwards to South Africa . With the way SA are performing atm, it should be a fairly confortable win, but knowing South Africa, they'll probably put in a stunning performance

Colin, Australia won the war. It was nice to see that Vickery was gracious enough to admit that. I think the game yesterday highlighted the shortcomings of the EPS agreement. I would wager that Johnson would have chosen a different squad having viewed the Italy v Australia test. A lot of the players: Sheridan, Hartley, Kennedy, Croft, Haskell, and Rees are in for the long haul, thus given that players like Mears, Vickery, Borthwick and Noon are not I can't help but wonder what could have been were Johnson able to have picked the meanest pack available: Flatman, White, Shaw, Grewock, Worsley etc, if only for this series. I recognise that there is no pain no gain but in this instance the pain may have been greater than necessary.

Bob, what you are effectively saying is that the Australian scrum was badly managed and was only percieved to be dominated because England got all the decisions (in 2005 etc.), right? Oh dear. Both teams were infringing at the scrum but England got penalised. Both Sheridan and Baxter didn't bind at most scrums. Also you could arguably say that Australia hit too early, which according to the laws is a free-kick, but that was debatable.

erm.. Bob, you could also say that Australia stayed in the match due to England's persistent infringements. Arguing that the Australian scrum was unfairly maligned in the past is incorrect. The Australia scrum was bad but has improved, and not due to reffing but to hard work and persistence.

It was a satisfying but ugly win with England only staying in the match by continually infringing. At long last the myth of the English scrum invincibility [2007 RWC] has been laid to rest and it was there for all to observe. I've argued on this site many times that the disinformation put about on our scrum was mainly a smoke screen and when the scrum laws were applied by the referees our "luck" would improve accordingly. Such was the case. Of further interest was fact that had Mortlock kicked the PG in Marseille – actually much shorter than the one he kicked yesterday – England would have gone out of RWC 2007 then and not overachieved by making the final. Great to see the laws applied and the Wallaby forwards step up to the challenge. Indeed they certainly provided the platform for the supposedly "unexpected" win. Most will recall I've argued for patience with Deans as we were thereabouts and but for a few poor options against the AB's in Bledisloe 3 and 4, OZ could have won both the TN's and the Bledisloe series. Having said that, I continue to despair about the poor options and execution of our back division and it is obvious we need another playmaker to back up Giteau urgently. Barnes was the man but his susceptibility to injury is a continuing worry. However, I'm sure Deans has something in mind and perhaps the reason he blooded the young guns against Italy. Our tactical kicking and execution remains a problem - especially the high ball where I continue to champion the idea it should not be used UNLESS we have at least a 50% chance to compete for the ball in the air. Our inability to use and execute the sliding kick within the 22 is like-wise of concern. Perhaps an additional 2 tries could have been scored against England had we used this tactic. Although Burgess's kicking game was better against England, his passing was below standard and but for an exceptional pick up by Giteau our only try may not have been forthcoming. No doubt the English pack and half upset him by being off side most of the time but he has to get used to that and not overplay his hand. Probably reason Deans left most on the field to help them cope with their ability to close out matches. Cross is not the answer at centre as he was unable to off load and continued to crab across field and most of his runs came to nought. He continues to make a mess of defence as well. Perhaps O'Connor should be tried? Coming tests against France, Scotland and Wales will not be easy. With an ounce of luck Scotland would have beaten the Boks. Losing Patterson early and then the injury to their playmaker 5/8 probably cost them the match. They sure play with passion and we must have similar intensity for our remaining matches.

I wrote another blog before the game "The Wallabies have the upper hand. Deans and his crew have had the 3Ns to refine their combinations and look at the scrum. The comments by the journos are smokescreens, they know this England team is under construction and hasn’t been tested at Test level. I suppose in many Deans has more to lose than Johnson. Johnson is just starting the process of sorting out the wheat from the chaff and he needs time and consistency of performance over a number of games to see who will make the grade. A defeat whilst not desired may be more beneficial in the long run, as a win can paper over the cracks with the overhype about new dawns etc. To be frank I can’t recall such an inexperienced English team for a Home international. It has potential but there are too many unanswered questions and this weekend will certainly answer some but not all." The Wallabies performance reminded me of England 2003, Wilko kicks the goals, read Giteau, and score the occasional try. I was at Twickenham and it was an efficient peformance. England made too many elementary errors and were punished. The Wallabies made three times more tackles than England and their defence was immence particularly at the end of the game when England were camped in the Wallaby 22. Fitness was not an issue for both sides, England lacked that extra element required at Test level to break open defences, they came close but not close enough. As for the ELV's, quite frankly had little impact and in many ways England tried to play a more expensive game than the Wallabies, otherthan the Wallaby kcking game out of hand was better then England's and is probably a trait of a team coached by Deans. If I took a straw pool of the majority of English fans they would like to see the same team picked for the game v SA and given more time to see if they can reach their potential. Johnson might be forced to make changes through injury and he might give Flood more game time at 10 and bring Kennedy back into the 2nd row as England's lineout was shambles. All in all well done to the Wallabies but England came with too many gifts.

I thought he came on after the try. my apologies. But, imagine the game we could have had if we had played the full ELV's!!!! The English were hoisted on their own petard!

A scrappy game with plenty of turnovers and lack of discipline, but an excellent win for the Wallabies, especially our forwards. Finally, a referee who rightly doesn't blame our pack every time the scrum collapses, and finally a fair contest in the scrum. Having watched our scrum get slaughtered by the Poms in the last three encounters, it was so sweet to see Vickery and Sheridan both being destroyed by our "new" pack. The best part was when (after the ref warned the Poms not to pull back), Vickery was forced to take the hit and he had to call time out because he was seeing stars! Our lineout was also much better. Sharpie has been born again with his new look and probably should have got man of the match. Let's hope he never shaves again. Palu had a huge impact off the bench. The entire front row did an incredible job. I thought Benn Robinson played his best match I've ever seen. The Backs: didn't do all that much and their defense was lacking a bit at times, although credit should go to the awesome footwork and elusiveness of the new English fly-half, and the two English wingers. Flutey was also quite good and has a killer sidestep. The kicking let England down and they could probably find a better kicker than Cipriani. Burgess had another shocker. His indecisiveness and lack of vision are causing all kinds of problems. However we can't put all the blame on him. He needed forwards putting their hands up waiting to take hit ups. Ashley-Cooper's kicking game needs more work. He needs to take a few lessons from Chris Latham, whose offensive kicks were more accurate and creative and he'd actually catch his own midfield bombs. I have to disagree with "The Link", I think Ryan Cross is awesome. He's bulked up since leaving league and both his defense and offense is powerful and awesome. Mortlock had another great game. His tackle on Flutey was one for the highlight reel, but even better was his signature tackle-breaking run near the English tryline in the first half. Ten's coverage was okay, and the commentator was very fair and eloquent. I think I prefer him over Gordon Bray. I can't say the same for Ten's presenters Ben Tune and Bill Woods. They both looked so tired and dull. Woods was very negative and lame, while Tune was boring, lifeless, unenthusiastic and had absolutely nothing interesting to say. Compared to the ABC's Toby Lawson, these guys looked extremely amateur.

LAS - point of detail - Mumm replaced Chisholm about same time as Brown/Palu sub I think. But your overall point re fitness stands - especially for front row as per my comments above.

Wasn't your day Benjamin - funny to see the wallabies using the opposition error rate and field position to produce the goods. As the Sheek said it was what we typcially see from England. Wallabies forwards were all over the English pack - thought the hand in the scrum showed how desperatly the English pack were hanging on - and will only be more so with the likes of Horwill and Elsom. Fitness also took toll on the English. Early days but Deans is well and truly on the right track.

Freddy Allen, captain of the WW II grand slam winning KIWIS, and later ace All Black Coach, coined the phrase "3 P's" - first position, second possession then pace. To those three we can now add a fourth P; power. But power is relatively ineffective if it is not synergised. Fred's Kiwis were battle hardened troops with endurance and stamina built up over six years of hard fighting in the Middle East, Sicily, Italy and Germany. Fred later grandfathered endurance & stamina as pre-requisite training before his 3 p's - and that doctrine is now built into the very fabric of all NZ elite rugby training. Hats off to Robbie Deans' endurance & stamina building training persistance with the current Wallabies. Not an easy task to break our old habits of "pacing yourself " as we have in the recent past. Against a fit England, we had more men at the breakdown and with manifested energy there in the 60 & 70th minutes than we have seen since the John Eales era. And the best is yet to come!

forgot to mention that the starting 15, excepting Brown played at full "volume" until the game was won in the last 6 or so minutes, despite the huge number of tackles. maybe Deans recent camp has addressed fitness!!!

The aussies back line ran two moves all game and nothing complex. A sign of the times, the personnel, and the lack of possession. This can improve. I have changed camps and now think that Giteau needs to be at 12 long term with a big 13, to do the crash ball runs that Mortlock did last night. Barnes, Beale or Cooper need to get some time in 10. I thought the tackling was brilliant from every Wallaby. Head on-covering-aggressive-brutal-dominant. Finally, the kicking game from Fullback needs to be revisited. As others have said above, gives away too much possession if the opposition back three can catch. Armitage was great. Maybe against smaller opponents, it might work. Surely , the back row can predict and link up with backs if the fullback runs the ball back. AAC has the skill and footwork, but currently, lacks the confidence or is scarred of creating a turnover.