England played very well. Of course when judging the performance of the Wallabies, and their collectiv or individual potential, it should always be done against the best teams playing well. Beating a second rate team, or a top team that is off colour is no indicator of excellence.
England were pretty strong in all areas of play. They made their tackles (many dominant), were judicious in their passing (but not overly conservative), kicked for goal successfully, chased their out of hand kicking well, committed at the breakdown with aggression and accuracy, were fast to take advantage of counter attacking opportunities, used their outside men well (after drawing in the Wallabies with strong fast running close in). They were not perfect (the lineout was at times shaky, the 12 and 13 were pretty pedestrian), and they had some fortune with the ref (though not enough to be considered decisive in terms of the result).
Rather than list all of the problems with the Wallabies, I'll go with the big ones:
-a lack of general guts and aggression when faced with a top notch team that is intent on playing a direct game
-tackling
-goal kicking (still)
-the scrum
-tactics, especially when dealing with a well organised defence
I don't see these problems as impossible to rectify in terms of the team performance as a whole, but it may mean that certain players need to be rested whilst other get a chance to improve the situation.
Guts are very hard to coach, and no amount of pushing from behind of opposition players who are on the ground will convince me otherwise. This is an area that Deans can only really deal with by bringing in different players. There are quite a few guys who did put in pretty gutsy performances, but those who didn't need to be dealt with.
Tackling is not really all that difficult, but a willingness to tackle (like guts) is hard to teach. I am on board with the idea that someone can be so good in other areas that their poor defence can be overlooked - but they actually have to perform in those 'other areas' for it to hold true. Probably the best option is to simply improve the defence (by better application or replacement)
The goal kicking was not great, but I would persevere with JO'C at this stage. He had a poor day, but there were a few shots today that I don't think should have been taken anyway. Barnes, Cooper, Beale, Giteau are not really much better.
The scrum is an ongoing issue which needs attention at all levels in Australian rugby (but also in terms of the world wide running of the game - the other matches had thier fair share of sloppy and dangerous scrumming, and strange refereeing too). In the short term the Wallaby team could be improved by giving preference to the best scrummagers and players who are fit (not injured, under done, a development project, actually pretty good in the loose etc).
The tactic to kick for low % penalties when the Wallabies were on the boil early on was not a good one. It tended to relieve pressure on the Poms, and didn't get us any points. We are much better running at them with ball in hand too.
The tactic to kick away possession, which was borne out of England's solid defence (and an unwillingness to risk physical impacts) did not generally help. Again, when the default position is to keep the ball and run into the defensive line with aggression at pace (see KB (Kurtley Beale)), then the use of a kick can be very effective (see KB (Kurtley Beale)).
Played well: KB (Kurtley Beale), Moore, Elsom, Sharpe, Pocock
Played badly: Cooper (VERY), McCalman, Robinson, Brown, Giteau
Others were up and down or just plain average.
We are missing three guys (Mortlock, TPN, Palu) who provide something vital to the team - they have the ability to make the opposition acutely aware of their mortality. Big mean guys who can put on a hit that just stops the opposition dead. I don't mean a tackle that allows a turnover. I mean a big mother fucken hit that primarily asserts physical domination.