England did not just beat Australia, they thrashed a side that two weeks ago defeated the All Blacks (ending a 15-Test winning streak) and a week ago beat Wales at Cardiff.
Admittedly, each side scored two tries. But it was the confident, skilful and ambitious way England played, including scoring a try from its own try line, that marked this victory as more than just a win.
It is undoubtedly a turning point, in the direction of another strong World Cup performance by England. But is it a turning point in the opposite direction for the Wallabies?
From the beginning of the Test there were several things happening with the Wallabies that did not seem right. James O’Connor missed his first three shots at goal. These were all kickable penalties.
Rod Kafer tried to be kind by suggesting they were from a long range distance. This is true. But they were not anywhere near as difficult as the kick that Kurtley Beale made to win the Test against the Springboks at Blomfontein.
The answer to the question who should be the number one goal kicker for the Wallabies is not O’Connor, talented though he is in running the ball. Deans might have to go back to Matt Giteau, with all his faults, except for the little difficulty that the Wallaby backline looks more purposeful and better defensively when Berrick Barnes is playing inside centre.
Quade Cooper perhaps? Well yes, he is worth a try – along with Barnes – but there is a problem. Teams are beginning to work out Cooper’s slick inside passes, the occasional long ball and the punt/pass to an unmarked winger. The skills that bemused the Springboks and the All Blacks did not take many tricks against England at Twickenham.
What was noticeable was his pathetic tackling. During the Super 14 tournament Cooper had the enviable record of missing more tackles than any other player. During the Tri-Nations he improved ever so slightly on this bad record. At Hong Kong he actually made some tackles and felt so emboldened by the Wallaby victory and his own part in it that he clipped Richie McCaw on the head as a reminder of who was the boss when O’Connor scored the winning try.
While McCaw was playing his usual high-tempo tackling and running match for the All Blacks in their thrashing of a confident Scotland side (forcing Scotland’s second worse defeat in Test against the All Blacks since 1905), Cooper was missing tackle after tackle after tackle.
Perhaps the worst miss by Cooper of many bad missed tackles was when the scoreline was 19 -6 early on in the second half. The Wallabies mounted a series of forward driving attacks. Will Genia was tackled short of the line. Mike Tindall forced a turnover. The ball was passed to the young England second rower Courtenay Lawes.
Cooper could have smashed him and set up a try. Instead Lawes stepped inside Cooper’s weak attempt at a tackle. He ran the big, young ex-Wigan winger Chris Ashton (a brilliant try-scorer at Sydney) in a gap. Ashton then ran the length of the field in the sort of heroic counter-attack you’d expect Kurtely Beale or O’Connor to launch, not a winger playing for England.
In my notes taken during the Test, I made the point that the Wallabies seemed to be kicking away a lot of ball. Where were the attacks that rattled the All Blacks at Hong Kong? More importantly, what was the point of these tactics? It wasn’t as if the Wallabies had any superiority in the forwards in the set pieces.
Kafer pointed out, too, that the two lines of attack, one flat and the other deeper, that worked so well against the All Blacks, Springboks and Wales was not in place against England. Again, why was a one-line attack presented against England?
England tend to have a rushing defence. This defence is far more vulnerable to a two-line attack that the normal drift defence.
Were the Wallabies tired after playing and winning two Tests in successive weeks?
Perhaps. I have argued for some time that Australian rugby players, at all levels, from schoolboys to the Wallabies just do not play enough rugby. The professional players are protected by an agreement with between the ARU and their trade union RUPA that limits them to about 25 games a season, maximum.
The Wallabies spend too much time in the gym and in camps, and not enough time playing rugby. The hero of the New Zealand Kiwi’s victory over the Kangaroos, Benji Marshall apparently played 34 (that is right, 34) games of rugby league this season. Rather than being exhausted and drained, his nimbleness of foot and mind created the two tries that gave his side another unlikely victory in the dying minutes of a long season.
A week ago we were all contemplating an unbeaten tour. Now this dream is over. It is inconceivable that Italy will pose too many problems next week. And judging by France’s lacklustre performance against Fiji, the Wallabies should be able to win the last match of the tour.
Nothing about these last two games is very important in the great scheme of things. But it was important to beat England. This was a match the Wallabies had set themselves to win. This was the match they needed to win to build on the confidence that came from – finally – defeating the All Blacks.
A win against England would have confirmed the current ranking of the Wallabies as the number two team in the world, and rising. The loss, and the manner of the loss, suggests that the number two ranking may be an aberration.
England play Samoa next week. Then they finish off their November Test season with a match against the Springboks. You’d expect England to defeat Samoa comfortably after Ireland halted a losing streak with a victory over Samoa 20 – 10.
But the outcome of England – South Africa will be more telling. The Springboks, playing their old-fashioned kick, chase and smash game played a strong second-half to haul back Wales 29 – 25.
Whoever wins between England and South Africa will go into the World Cup year of 2011 with the sort of momentum that the Wallabies seemed to be building up, until they played so poorly at Twickenham.
What a difference a fortnight makes in the fortunes of teams playing Test match rugby.
Ben S
Roar Guru
'With a forward pack that gets dominance at the breakdown by exception rather than the rule' England had greater possession, but the possession statistics were hardly hugely lopsided at 55-45. and Australia pilfered more ball at the ruck than England did. 'The few times the Wallabies did this they penetrated England’s defence with ease.' You've already said this, but when? 'There were 11 turnovers in general play and Tindall’s barging effort was the most obvious.' Most obvious what? I have flu, you might have to develop this. 'That’s a bit rich coming from a supporter of the team that lay all over the ball at the tackle; Palmer on Genia for one incontrovertible example. Neither team was faultless when it came to cynical play, after all, both of England’s tries resulted from ‘cynical play’.' It's not rich, it's an observation. Australia were cynical throughout the game, just ast they were against Leicester and Munster. Giteau prevented a 7, and Burgess should have been yellow carded. Palmer may well have been penbalised, but then Genia may well have been penalised for not releasing, so this is all theoretical. He was isolated and turned over. Both of England's tries came from cynical play? 'Incorrect. All of his kicks were inside England’s half.' Not what the coverage said, but in any case, England had easy kicks, O'Connor didn't. The first two kicks were hopeful at best. 'Instead of rebutting what I have written, you’ve resorted to red herrings and begging the question. That is a sure sign that my position is on safe ground if you have to resort to those lengths to respond.' Look, this is all pretty simple. You were clearly trying to downplay the loss, hence the "Oh, I didn't say that." ‘(The reality of the Twickenham spectacle is although England played with enterprise and pace, they were assisted by a woeful Wallaby outfit, intent on handing back possession inanely and giving up territory defensively.’), when actually you did say that. Y Australia did not at any time penetrate the English defence with ease. They resorted to kicking because it is one of the two options on how to beat a rush defence, it didn't work, so let's drop this regurgitated newspaper/pundit chat of mismatches in the midfield. Repetition doesn't add validity to a claim. Statements like this - 'England should have scored a plethora of tries last weekend, but found themselves in the red zone completely bewildered, bashing the ball up with little effect until the expected handling error resulted.' simply aren't accurate, which is why you have failed to respond to queries. All this talk of red herrings is cover for the fact that you made a host of comments which basically aren't true.
Jason
Roar Guru
So when did Australia penetrate the English defence with ease? As I said originally: With a forward pack that gets dominance at the breakdown by exception rather than the rule, and a backline with prodigious talent, the Wallabies should have been looking to create the mismatched defence in the centres, permitting the English defence to rush forward, committed to dummy runners and then capitalised on with pace and width. The few times the Wallabies did this they penetrated England’s defence with ease. My position is that they did not look like scoring. You clearly disagree, so support your assertion. No I don’t ‘clearly disagree’ at all, hence why I said the ‘few times’. I.e. other than the ‘few times’ they did that, they didn’t look like penetrating England’s defence and it’s a commonly accepted truism that it is hard to score a try without penetrating the opposition’s defence. There were 11 turnovers in general play and Tindall’s barging effort was the most obvious. In the cases above it was only cynical Australian play which prevented a try. That’s a bit rich coming from a supporter of the team that lay all over the ball at the tackle; Palmer on Genia for one incontrovertible example. Neither team was faultless when it came to cynical play, after all, both of England’s tries resulted from ‘cynical play’. Australia had one opportunity up close. One. That doesn’t support your ‘penetration with ease’ comment. The few times; this does not mean often, numerous, frequently, predominately nor constantly. It means rarely or seldom. Nor does the statement about Australia’s lack of back line play in terms of options, depth, decoy runners and second line of attack have anything to do with where such play took place. Hence your ‘opportunity up close’ is yet another in a long line of begging the question fallacies. Two of O’Connor’s penalties were plus 50 metres. Incorrect. All of his kicks were inside England’s half. But you haven’t made accurate observation, and when challenged you’ve refused to support your initial assertions. You’re also being rude again. Instead of rebutting what I have written, you’ve resorted to red herrings and begging the question. That is a sure sign that my position is on safe ground if you have to resort to those lengths to respond.
Ben S
Roar Guru
So when did Australia penetrate the English defence with ease? My position is that they did not look like scoring. You clearly disagree, so support your assertion. You stated that England made ground but failed to capitalise. There were very few handling errors on Saturday. When did England make these errors in the red zone? 'We playing this game now? In that case Ashton’s first try shouldn’t have been permitted for taking Pocock out and the second will be a yellow to the England players laying all over Genia on their line.' A game? Why the sarcasm? It's unnecessary. My point is clear - England fashioned multiple try scoring opportunities. In the cases above it was only cynical Australian play which prevented a try. Australia had one opportunity up close. One. That doesn't support your 'penetration with ease' comment. 'The fact of the matter is Flood converted seven penalty attempts at goal, whereas O’Connor missed three of his five. England actually conceded more penalties than Australia did, from less possession. Wow, how informative is that?' Two of O'Connor's penalties were plus 50 metres. Flood only had one kick that wasn't a given. Pretty informative IMO. Further, if Australia were penetrating the English defence with ease why bother pursuing 50 metre kicks? Why not trust the backs or the lineout? Also, I'm not sure you're aware what the penalties were for, are you? 'Of course it ‘was a purposeful tactic’, it’s been a purposeful tactic of England’s for decades. In fact, it would be accurate to describe Hape and Tindall as ‘confused stodgy backs’. I’m sure in England you might consider them enterprising, but in the antipodes, we have higher standards.' Hmmm.... Not sure any of that is accurate. 'Only lightweights dismiss accurate observation by flippantly referring to the analysis in such a manner.' But you haven't made accurate observation, and when challenged you've refused to support your initial assertions. You're also being rude again. Is it that hard to remain polite? 'Neither is it relevant to what I said. But if you can’t respond to what I actually said, feel free to invent a position for me that’s easier for you to argue.' Paraphrasing - ‘The reality of the Twickenham spectacle is although England played with enterprise and pace, they were assisted by a woeful Wallaby outfit, intent on handing back possession inanely and giving up territory defensively.’
Jason
Roar Guru
Really? Yah, really. Australia scored one try Try? I clearly stated 'penetrated England's defence'. When did this happen? At which point of the match did these handling errors occur? You seriously expect me to sit through the tape again and note every time England cough up the ball? Matt Giteau was yellow carded from preventing what would likely have been a 7 pointer, and Luke Burgess was fortunate not to have received a yellow in the dying embers of the match when Cueto burst up the flank and Ashton finished just short of the line. We playing this game now? In that case Ashton's first try shouldn't have been permitted for taking Pocock out and the second will be a yellow to the England players laying all over Genia on their line. The fact of the matter is that Flood took 12 points from Australian indiscretions at the ruck, which is quite informative. The fact of the matter is Flood converted seven penalty attempts at goal, whereas O'Connor missed three of his five. England actually conceded more penalties than Australia did, from less possession. Wow, how informative is that? You might also want to consider the fact that ‘bashing the ball up’ was a purposeful tactic, and not the sole quality of a set of confused stodgy backs. Of course it 'was a purposeful tactic', it's been a purposeful tactic of England's for decades. In fact, it would be accurate to describe Hape and Tindall as 'confused stodgy backs'. I'm sure in England you might consider them enterprising, but in the antipodes, we have higher standards. There’s always somebody who comes up with this line. Only lightweights dismiss accurate observation by flippantly referring to the analysis in such a manner. Saturday was a start, but all this “Yeah, they were good… but only because the other side was sooo bad!” isn’t particularly accurate. Neither is it relevant to what I said. But if you can't respond to what I actually said, feel free to invent a position for me that's easier for you to argue.
woodster
Guest
Spiro I think your going to easy on these wallabies with your last article I think it went like aussies on track for unbeaten tour or something like that and now this one. All im saying is just give them the truth Spiro dont sugar coat it just give them the cold hard facts about this current squad and how good they really are. I think these readers deserve that much.
Glenn Condell
Guest
'happy enough with the tap but running across field from a ruck like he did when he turned it over was a real schoolboy error' He does it all the time now, it's like Gregan rewind. The ruck clearing has become ponderous too, like 'why not wait another 15 odd seconds to let them line the defence up better for the predictable one-out forward barge I'm just about to lay on'? It would of course be nice to have a few forwards with some leg drive but even the Bok back row of a few years ago would have trouble making he advantage line off passes as telegraphed as those Genia throws nowadays. The snap and crackle has gone, now we have soggy and slow. If we had a pack that went forward like England's did, Genia or anyone really would prosper behind them, but it's a worry to see Youngs appear to be so much quicker in thought and deed. What we need most is PNau back at prop so Moore can start, with Robbo or Slipper starting and Alexander impact from bench; Horwill, Vickerman and especially Palu fit, and John Muggleton returned to firm the defence up.
Jim Boyce
Guest
Frank - If Giteau and Cooper are not options, either because of size or non-tackling ability, Barnes would have to play and probably 5/8. The inside centre would then be a complement to A/C. I understand what you are saying re the captaincy not being a revolving door but Elsom is a captain by default . There are too many questionable decisions on the field, the tap kicks should have been stopped. The team does not appear to know how to up the pressure. The Wallabies were making serious in-roads prior to the end to end try which was effectively a 14 point turnaround. Genia needed more English forwards committed to the breakdown when he got taken by 3 with no support. He has a better pass than Burgess but he seems to be the culprit on the unorganised tap kicks. Burgess is not far behind him now but there appears to be no leadership in the backs unless you have barnes there.
soapit
Guest
would solve a few problems if he got back to his peak.
soapit
Guest
one other thing that lacked variety was our passing compared to england. they mixed it up doing little switches to to a forward and then swinging out to the overlaps. we just sent long flat balls out to a runner to be picked off.
soapit
Guest
yes, people carry on about his rugby brain/smarts largely because they see him playing a tactical kicking game but is that style it going to help us win matches. i think not.
soapit
Guest
two tries each but they also had more shots from much more kickable positions because they were playing well getting into our half and putting us under pressure. we didnt/couldnt do that to them so our penalties were from long distance. the scoreline was a fair reflection.
Darwin Stubbie
Guest
Far, far too simplistic answer ... Barnes hasn't been his minder through age group, schools and club football ... this is where it should have been addressed ... that it hasn't and he's emerged onto the stage with a massive deficency and to then employ tactics to play around this problem and not correct it is poor coaching ...
TembaVJ
Guest
This is what the Wallabies need... http://www.bordermail.com.au/news/local/sport/rugby-union/stirling-looks-to-lock-down-melbourne-rebels-captaincy/1998265.aspx
shop
Guest
AJ The reason the Wallabies are so hot and cold is because they don't have any real leadership. There is no way some of the ridiculous quick taps amongst other bad options would have been taken under Eales. I'm sure Rocky would be relieved if he had the captaincy taken away. I rate him highly as a player but he just isn't a captain. Sharpe (experience and cool head) or Barnes (better rugby brain) would be better options. Why start O'Connor's day with the boot with a 50 metre shot? Carter, Contempomi, Steyn for sure, but JOC has just been given the role.
Mike
Guest
Only flaw to your analysis if that the game is 80 minutes long and the only result that counts is the score at the end - its NOT won or lost in quarters.
Tony P
Guest
I guess not too many of the posters here watched England v the ABs The ABs rushed to a 14- zip lead in twenty minutes whilst the Poms got to know each other and in the next 60 minutes England won 16 - 12. The problem here is that we are too much influenced by what the so called "experts" write. As Danny says above Horan, Little, Roff etc knew how to tackle ( this was of course before ELVs etc) - even if the latter used his elbow too much as on the occasion he broke Richard Hills Jaw in the Lions match in Melbourne in 2001
joeb
Guest
Spiro: "Were the Wallabies tired after playing and winning two Tests in successive weeks?" Deans needs to adopt urgently an effective rotation system and reward bench players because our forwards in particular our second rowers weren't making too much progress against England's excellent defence... we're definitely missing Polota-Nau, Horwill and Palu, and even young-gun Pocock struggled... interesting also that Greg Growden in his Monday Maul piece said: "Again the Australians got ahead of themselves by reading their own press and believing they were the magicians of the world stage, but didn't have the grunt, leadership or Plan B to work their way out of trouble when it got tough." But again our poor goal-kicking in the 1st half, three straight penalty attempt misses didn't exactly inspire our hard-yard men up front taking on a home side eager to appease supporters and coach, and other assorted hangers-on... Well done England, played tough, played strong! Spiro: "It is inconceivable that Italy will pose too many problems next week." They've caused us problems before and are bound to again, particularly in the forwards' department... Spiro: "And judging by France’s lacklustre performance against Fiji, the Wallabies should be able to win the last match of the tour." A week or two in rugby is a long time... fear the Frenchmen, they're capable of anything, especially after England whacking us. From champs to chumps, Deans has trouble on his wary hands - Greg Growden http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/from-champs-to-chumps-deans-has-trouble-on-his-wary-hands-20101114-17str.html Bad time for the wobbles when northern rivals are just warming up - Spiro http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/bad-time-for-the-wobbles-when-northern-rivals-are-just-warming-up-20101115-17uen.html
Derm
Roar Guru
Bayboy - it would be impossible for England to "go down to South Africa this weekend". They're playing Samoa. Do try and keep up, dear boy. ;) The point I was responding to was that All Blacks beat England fairly comfortably. I don't think so. It was a close-run game, particularly towards the end with desperation tackles (including an illegal one) flying in. I wouldn't define that as winning comfortably, whatever about the 10 point margin. For a first game up, it was a good performance from England. Whether they beat NZ in NZ next year is irrelevant to that particular point.
shop
Guest
I also agree that Genia was never given a chance to play the ball and it should of been a penalty. However it was still a terrible option going himself. Another shocker by the ref was when Ashton scored his first try he blatantly took out Pocock just beforehand - check the replay. Even without these tries though England were by far the better side and really the tactics employed by the Wallabies were beyond belief.
shop
Guest
JB Agree with all your comments but Pocock had every right to complain about being taken illegally out by Ashton just before he scored his first try. Check the replay and it is clear as day.