Wallabies vs England, Sydney, 3rd Test, 25 June @ 8:00pm
- Thread starter The torpedo
- Start date
- Status
Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
All the talk of Eddie Jones outwitting Cheika. Poor Wallaby captaincy, the poor performance of halves etc etc etc
Yeah, nah.
I saw the English outmuscle the Wallabies again in contact, on offense and in defense.
The rest is just fluff. That Wallaby back row was not physical enough. McMahaon looks great in an open game where he gets lots of ball. When he has to get into a fight he disappears. Fardy was dealing with three big bopper Pom back rowers and they all played really tight and to the ball. He cut a lonely figure. And those English locks are beasts. Carter did well to hold the fort but its was not enough.
No 9 and 10 can not perform if the pack is under such constant pressure. The Wallabies recycle ball was always under pressure. They were rushed. There was not enough front foot ball. Foley played from deep all the time because he had not time so had to make it by creating space. It was a mess. The Poms put the bodies into the breakdown and it worked.
Yeah, nah.
I saw the English outmuscle the Wallabies again in contact, on offense and in defense.
The rest is just fluff. That Wallaby back row was not physical enough. McMahaon looks great in an open game where he gets lots of ball. When he has to get into a fight he disappears. Fardy was dealing with three big bopper Pom back rowers and they all played really tight and to the ball. He cut a lonely figure. And those English locks are beasts. Carter did well to hold the fort but its was not enough.
No 9 and 10 can not perform if the pack is under such constant pressure. The Wallabies recycle ball was always under pressure. They were rushed. There was not enough front foot ball. Foley played from deep all the time because he had not time so had to make it by creating space. It was a mess. The Poms put the bodies into the breakdown and it worked.
We had 71% possession and spent 74% of the match in England's half.
I can't find the figures but we must have spent more than 5 minutes inside England's 22 with the ball.
Our kicking game wasn't good but kicking for territory was not really something we needed more of. We spent huge amounts of time with the ball in attack inside England's 22.
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
You're right I think, but no Beale and no Tomane is just a preview of next year. As coaches are wont to say, it is an opportunity for others to come in and stand up. Unfortunately, there hasn't been enough standing up, although DHP and Kerevi as direct wing and No 12 replacements have been among the best on offer. There certainly are problems in other key areas as well.
Shh. Doesn't fit the narrative.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Have you heard of box kicks, chip kicks, grubber kicks?
Bugger me, did you see the second Pommy try?
Or does that not "fit the narrative"?
When you're inside the 22 and the defence is set, any of those options would be considered low percentage options.
At some point we probably should have resorted to a cross field bomb.
It seemed to me we didn't vary things enough. We would continually go one pass off the ruck but didn't try and suck in defenders with pick and goes and generally didn't have the depth or numerical advantage to take advantage out wide when we went with that option.
We did see the second England try. We turned over the ball, missed a tackle and had no one home at fullback.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
Braveheart is right, if you have nearly three quarters of the pill and around the same amount of territory and can't win a game of rugby then your strategy is wrong or you didn't execute well. I would argue that both were the case on the weekend. You should never lose a game under those circumstances.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
And yet the simple fact remains that nobody in that team can have the slightest degree of confidence in our ability to kick the ball.
I am certain that that sort of weakness in our armoury infects our performance in ways that we cannot define.
Putting the opposition in two, or more minds, is crucial. Most England players are very experienced, play in all sorts of conditions. Adaptability is key.
We are flat trackers, no variety at all. As you seem to accept.
That first penalty kick by Foley which travelled 20 metres in field was a pretty good harbinger of doom to come. Reminded me a bit of Quade kicking out on the full at the start of our ill-fated match against New Zealand in the 2011 RWC. It was all down-hill from there.
I am certain that that sort of weakness in our armoury infects our performance in ways that we cannot define.
Putting the opposition in two, or more minds, is crucial. Most England players are very experienced, play in all sorts of conditions. Adaptability is key.
We are flat trackers, no variety at all. As you seem to accept.
That first penalty kick by Foley which travelled 20 metres in field was a pretty good harbinger of doom to come. Reminded me a bit of Quade kicking out on the full at the start of our ill-fated match against New Zealand in the 2011 RWC. It was all down-hill from there.
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
I thought that in the absence of a ball playing 12, in slippery conditions. Cross field bombs for Izzy & grubber kicks into the Cnr were both good options.
Especially as Foley's strength is as a runner, not as a distributor.
We just got sucked into playing the game they wanted us to play.
I agree.
The ability to have options both sides of the breakdown or the potential to get the ball wider and have a playmaking option out there could have really made a difference in converting some of that possession into points inside the red zone.
I've read a thousand posts from you about the same thing, so yeah, I've heard of them. I don't think they were the issues on the weekend, but a small part of it.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
And they should all be in the NRL thread where they belong. When you're in the 22 - and keeping in mind this is rugby - then kicking the ball should only be done off a tee, in the event you get a penalty.
If you wanted to stand England's defensive line back a bit, you might do it further out.
Everything I've heard so far suggests England simply picked Cheikaball apart, and no-one on field was going to change the plan on the fly. A few pick n drives might have helped.
The point is: Renegades 2nd Grade won 96-12.
chasmac
Dave Cowper (27)
I agree with Blue's comment above. England dominated the tackle area in offense and defense. They have been both strong and disciplined.
Our Achilles heel for years has been a rush defense. Who can remember all the hand wringing over Berrick Barnes' grubber kicks / short chip kicks inside the wallaby half.
Various tactics have been discussed to counter the rush defense;
Pick and Go
Short kicking
Box kicks
Offloads in tackles
First phase strike moves.
Reality is that their defense is extremely good and is extremely confident at the moment. We need all of the tactics mentioned above and we need team cohesion to execute these tactics. It seemed a bit one-out last weekend, a bit like watching the blues in State of Origin.
Numbers at the breakdown needs to be increased.
We need a line bending option in the pack
Also we need more speed in our backline.
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
Forwards
1. Slipper
2. TPN
3 Holmes (Keps was OK but underdone last week)
4 Simmons (will be back)
5 Coleman (will be blooded)
6 Mummy (Fardy was THAT poor last week I'd bench him)
7 Hooper
8 Palu - (yep Palu)
1. Slipper
2. TPN
3 Holmes (Keps was OK but underdone last week)
4 Simmons (will be back)
5 Coleman (will be blooded)
6 Mummy (Fardy was THAT poor last week I'd bench him)
7 Hooper
8 Palu - (yep Palu)
Viking
Mark Ella (57)
Why Simmons over Carter? They both equally lack impact in the collision but Carter dominated the stats for ruck involvements. The line-out was solid all game and he didn't give away silly penalties. If your going to pick one, then I'd go Carter.
But I wouldn't pick either.
4. Arnold - he's good for 20mins. Signs are good, needs more time.
5. Coleman
Time for new blood, the third game is meaningless - yes we all know its a still a test match but even if we win it won't count for much now with the series lost.
chasmac
Dave Cowper (27)
I'd keep Carter for workrate and lineout. What are his scrums like?
Then need an enforcer / line bender. Is Coleman the next best after Douglas?
Viking
Mark Ella (57)
Carter has a reputation for being a good scrummager. Arnold is suppose to be the next best after Douglas but he is still very fresh. Coleman could be worth a try.
- Status