[2015 RWC] Pool A: England vs. Australia (03/10/2015)

[nik]

This is a knock out game for England so I believe mentally they'll have more of an edge compared to Australia. Just depends how England deals with the pressure.

The Australian experienced players need to remind the rest of their team what to expect. Experienced players like Pocock, AAC, etc. know what to expect from the host nation in a knockout game. They have experienced NZs intensity in the last rwc semi final.

England will need to come out with the same intensity up front and keep it up for 80mins otherwise they are gone. This Australian team can play the full 80mins.

 

[TRF_heineken]

England have nothing to lose... So they should just go out guns blazing. If they win, then they have a chance of qualifying. If they lose they are in the same position as they are now, 3rd in the group and out of the tournament.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

What ever Wales fan wanted to do last summer: Kicking Liam Williams in the head.

hah.. Didn't really need to ask that question.

This is a knock out game for England so I believe mentally they'll have more of an edge compared to Australia. Just depends how England deals with the pressure.

The Australian experienced players need to remind the rest of their team what to expect. Experienced players like Pocock, AAC, etc. know what to expect from the host nation in a knockout game. They have experienced NZs intensity in the last rwc semi final.

England will need to come out with the same intensity up front and keep it up for 80mins otherwise they are gone. This Australian team can play the full 80mins.

To be honest I'm not sure we have the mental edge over anyone..As Brian Moore tweeted, too often udner Lancaster England have fallen short in high pressure occasions.

 

[ncurd]

England have nothing to lose... So they should just go out guns blazing. If they win, then they have a chance of qualifying. If they lose they are in the same position as they are now, 3rd in the group and out of the tournament.

Win and we almost certainly have qualified. Due to Australia's failure to get a BP against Fiji and tie-breakers being on head 2 head they'll need to get two bonus points in a loosing game and make sure England don't get one to be able beat us on group points. Assuming of course England get a Bonus Point win against Uruguay, 4 days after they've played Fiji...

Problem is I don't see Lancaster's selection as being all guns blazing....

 

[Willodell100]

Problem is I don't see Lancaster's selection as being all guns blazing....

No neither do I. I think now he's

He'll make the enforced changes:

Launchbury for Lawes
Morgan for Vunipola
Wigglesworth for Youngs

But he'll keep the same team otherwise.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Win and we almost certainly have qualified. Due to Australia's failure to get a BP against Fiji and tie-breakers being on head 2 head they'll need to get two bonus points in a loosing game and make sure England don't get one to be able beat us on group points. Assuming of course England get a Bonus Point win against Uruguay, 4 days after they've played Fiji...

Problem is I don't see Lancaster's selection as being all guns blazing....

True...

And I don't see Australia losing against them by more than 7 points... So Australia will most probably get at least 1 bonus point in this game for losing by less than 7.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Win and we almost certainly have qualified. Due to Australia's failure to get a BP against Fiji and tie-breakers being on head 2 head they'll need to get two bonus points in a loosing game and make sure England don't get one to be able beat us on group points. Assuming of course England get a Bonus Point win against Uruguay, 4 days after they've played Fiji...

Problem is I don't see Lancaster's selection as being all guns blazing....

yeah, which is why I'm no sure I quite agree that we have nothing to lose. Whatever there was to lose to begin with is still there to be lost depending on this game... in fact it's going to get a whole lot worse for everyone if we do lose again.

But I agree with Heineken in that now the horror of saturday has faded a tiny bit, we've got the fear of losing out the way.
Whether Lancaster has is arguably a different matter, and he may still select his teams as if he's driven by the fear of losing...
But for the rest of us we've got the worst out the way (unless we lose again to Wales in knock out!!!)
And it means that there is NOTHING to hide behind if we lose again. Two losses, on home soil, after so much preparation and resources, and I can't see the current set up sticking around.
Whereas, get knocked out in a thrilling knock out in the quarters or a semi having won the pool, and arguably the RFU have a harder job deciding whether to stick or twist...

 

[Willodell100]

Who SL picks at 13 is key for me.

I don't mind so much if they stick with Farrell at 10. I'd prefer Ford as he adds so much more to our offensive game.

Burgess @12 did very well last week and deserves to keep his place on form even though like many I see as a better loose forward.

But if I see the name Barritt with the 13 on his back....

He has been a very average England player for a very long time but has been plainly awful these past two matches.

I have heard a load of rubbish about we need a defensive leader in the backline. B@ll@c!(s! Pick the best 15 and then pick a backs defensive leader. It feels like this regime gets this the wrong way round.

If Joseph isn't fit I would pick Slade (as he should have done last week).

The added advantage with Slade is, again something we desperately missed last week, we have a second receiver. He is a class act and I believe has the right frame of mind for the big games.

Thoughts?

 

[jomjom]

I had a dream that it was 58 - 52 to England... Sign maybe I should put a bet on?

 

[TommiG88]

I had a dream that it was 58 - 52 to England... Sign maybe I should put a bet on?

Or quit the drug taking.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Lancaster is between a rock and a hard place here. Glorious defeat isn't an option. This is a one off game with the result all. No time to be taking risks or making wholesale changes.

I think it'll be same again up front, bar injuries. If Lawes is out, then Launch is an obvious swap. no8 will depend just how fit Morgan is, but bearing in mind he's ring rusty anyway I wonder if Easter might be a surprise pick. Suspect not, but nothing surprises me any more.

Behind, I really hope Youngs is fit, but if not Care must start as he's more experienced and likely to keep the Oz back row honest. Farrell and Burgess both went OK at the weekend, but assuming JJ is out BB must be replaced by Nowell or Slade. JN is probably more like for like while HS has more all round skills and also a kicking game. Would probably go with Slade, but a very big ask for either of them.

- - - Updated - - -

Lancaster is between a rock and a hard place here. Glorious defeat isn't an option. This is a one off game with the result all. No time to be taking risks or making wholesale changes.

I think it'll be same again up front, bar injuries. If Lawes is out, then Launch is an obvious swap. no8 will depend just how fit Morgan is, but bearing in mind he's ring rusty anyway I wonder if Easter might be a surprise pick. Suspect not, but nothing surprises me any more.

Behind, I really hope Youngs is fit, but if not Care must start as he's more experienced and likely to keep the Oz back row honest. Farrell and Burgess both went OK at the weekend, but assuming JJ is out BB must be replaced by Nowell or Slade. JN is probably more like for like while HS has more all round skills and also a kicking game. Would probably go with Slade, but a very big ask for either of them.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Interesting article:

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/rwc-analysis-know-your-enemy/

People go on about Cole and penalties but why the fuk is he the second highest ruck participate in the forward pack?

Perhaps if the other players actually made more of an effort to hit the ruck early in defence and provide support him wouldn't be the only one trying to create a turnover?

James Haskell in 18 minutes hit 3 rucks, Brookes in 9 minutes hit 2 rucks why has Haskell did Haskell hit only one more ruck than Brookes despite playing twice the time.

Interesting that Burgess has the same work rate in the ruck as Vunipola. It looks quite impressive really for Burgess in terms of rucks and why Bath see him as a flanker.

Also shows how much work the Aus back row makes.

Just saw this - thanks for it, very interesting..

Several impressions confirmed:

- Robshaws worth his weight
- Dan Cole has athleticism but perhaps not the strength and power at the ruck. He's also not very difficult to dislodge over the ball, it's just that he get's into a good position very early. Still, his work around the field is impressive.
- My crusade against Tom Wood continues - he's not adding a lot in many areas so to justify himself he needs to be hitting more rucks. The 6 and 7 should top these lists, but Wood only hit more than guys who played between 40 and 60 minutes.
- Launchbury probably the strongest at ruck-time with the clear out in particular.

 

[RoosTah]

England have nothing to lose... So they should just go out guns blazing. If they win, then they have a chance of qualifying. If they lose they are in the same position as they are now, 3rd in the group and out of the tournament.

Not quite sure how you work that out... according to some British papers, England have tens of billions of dollars worth of economic activity if they lose this weekend. The stakes are pretty ****ing high for them. They go down and they'll be the first host nation to ever get knocked out at the pool stage. Given they were second favourites after NZ coming into the RWC, that's a pretty big fall.

The way I see it, the pressure on England is massive, whilst for Australia it's pretty low... there's not a tonne of expectation for this Wallaby side and most of our media are too heavily wrapped up on the Rugby League and Aussie Rules Grand Finals to give the RWC too much attention.

 

[kesh]

Who SL picks at 13 is key for me.

I don't mind so much if they stick with Farrell at 10. I'd prefer Ford as he adds so much more to our offensive game.

Burgess @12 did very well last week and deserves to keep his place on form even though like many I see as a better loose forward.

But if I see the name Barritt with the 13 on his back....

He has been a very average England player for a very long time but has been plainly awful these past two matches.

I have heard a load of rubbish about we need a defensive leader in the backline. B@ll@c!(s! Pick the best 15 and then pick a backs defensive leader. It feels like this regime gets this the wrong way round.

If Joseph isn't fit I would pick Slade (as he should have done last week).

The added advantage with Slade is, again something we desperately missed last week, we have a second receiver. He is a class act and I believe has the right frame of mind for the big games.

Thoughts?

1) The Burgess - Slade midfield has a 100% win record together... it looks like the right balance.
2) SL will not drop Barritt nor pick Slade. He might feel that flinging it around would only play into the Aussie's backrow sniffer umbrella and opts for maximum stodge one up rugby. Can't really gauge what his going to do or pick unless you look at his previous record of only changing players due to injury and bringing JJ in when he'd exhausted all other options. Which leads onto point 3.
3) The likely options going on past SL trends in order are Faz-SB-BB / Faz-BB-JJ if his ready, Ford-Faz-JJ/BB, Faz-BB-JJ/Slade, Faz-SB-JJ/Slade, Ford-SB-BB, Ford-BB-JJ/Slade. Ford-Slade-JJ wont happen imo.
4) Looking to see if Faz Andy's original assessment of JJ had some truth to it, could be down to whether his training today.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Apparently Goode is being considered as a starter either @15 with Brown wing or on the wing.......


And by Apparently I mean I have no idea if.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Apparently Goode is being considered as a starter either @15 with Brown wing or on the wing.......


And by Apparently I mean I have no idea if.

Where did you hear this?
I will be stunned if this is the decision they've made. It absolutely would not follow at all to any extent.

 

[BigSam89]

I got a feeling England will beat Australia , England do some surprise performances I.e New Zealand 2012 ?? Who saw that result coming ?? , The next dilemma will be who he picks for the team , At 10 i'd pick Ford , 12 - Slade , 13 - Burgess , Against France this back line performed well , If they are going to go down fighting then at least risk a selection to go down fighting with.

- - - Updated - - -

Just saw this - thanks for it, very interesting..

Several impressions confirmed:

- Robshaws worth his weight
- Dan Cole has athleticism but perhaps not the strength and power at the ruck. He's also not very difficult to dislodge over the ball, it's just that he get's into a good position very early. Still, his work around the field is impressive.
- My crusade against Tom Wood continues - he's not adding a lot in many areas so to justify himself he needs to be hitting more rucks. The 6 and 7 should top these lists, but Wood only hit more than guys who played between 40 and 60 minutes.
- Launchbury probably the strongest at ruck-time with the clear out in particular.

I'd start Launchbury ahead of Parling
Tom wood I'd change for Haskell
Robshaw can't let other players get into he's head and change the decision i.e go for points or touch.

 

[profitius]

England won't be the only ones under pressure.
Australia will be under pressure too especially if Wales get a bonus point win against Fiji, which England got and Australia failed to do.

Remarkably I'm sure the Aussies were not too bothered about the bonus point when playing Fiji.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

Not quite sure how you work that out... according to some British papers, England have tens of billions of dollars worth of economic activity if they lose this weekend. The stakes are pretty ****ing high for them. They go down and they'll be the first host nation to ever get knocked out at the pool stage. Given they were second favourites after NZ coming into the RWC, that's a pretty big fall.

The way I see it, the pressure on England is massive, whilst for Australia it's pretty low... there's not a tonne of expectation for this Wallaby side and most of our media are too heavily wrapped up on the Rugby League and Aussie Rules Grand Finals to give the RWC too much attention.

it's all AFL here in Melbourne... Rugby what?

 

[spartan32]

England can beat this Australia side but not with burgess and BB as the centre pairing. We need Slade at the very least. As for the Goode rumour, if theres any truth in it then SL needs taking out and shooting.