Australia V England

[Fushitsusha]

This is the Wallabies team to play England -

1. Dunning
2. Moore
3. Shepherdson
4. Sharpe
5. Vickerman
6. Elsom
7. Smith
8. Palu
9. Gregan
10. Barnes
11. Tuqiri
12. Giteau
13. Mortlock ©
14. Ashley-Cooper
15. Latham

16. Freier
17. Baxter
18. McMeniman
19. Waugh
20. Hoiles
21. Huxley
22. Mitchell


Strong team. Should dispose of the English.

 

[Maccaweeny]

Good, at 83 kegs Mitchell isn't the most imposing character on defence.

 

[HarryPeters]

Anyway.... back to topic!

ENG TEAM:-
Jason Robinson; Paul Sackey, Mathew Tait, Andy Farrell, Josh Lewsey; Jonny Wilkinson, Andy Gomarsall; Andrew Sheridan, Mark Regan, Phil Vickery (captain), Simon Shaw, Ben Kay, Martin Corry, Lewis Moody, Nick Easter.

Replacements: George Chuter, Matt Stevens, Lawrence Dallaglio, Joe Worsley, Peter Richards, Olly Barkley, Dan Hipkiss.

[/b]

That is one strong team, although I'm not sure it is going to be enough to beat the Aussies. Should be a great game though, hopfully its close.

 

[stormmaster1]

<div class='quotemain'> Am I the only Aussie here who is seriously worried about this match? Maybe I'm placing too much importance on Wilkinson and Robinson being back, but combining that with the losses in our own ranks makes for a very uncertain fixture in my mind... if anything I think England may even have the edge in this match. Barnes was great against Wales, but he's still largely an unknown quantity really and if he can't aim up we could be stuffed! [/b]

Relax mate all is well. NZ have the best scrum in the world and ours competed well enough against them for us to get a fair share of good ball. A fully expect Engalnd to win the scrum battle just as they did against SA. However rugby has changed since 2003. Having the superior scrum doesn't gaurentee victory. Look at Wales they destroyed the Fiji scrum and still lost. Vickerman, Sharpe and Elsom are as good a lineout as anyone else in the world. Our backrow should dominate the breakdown. England will get no quick ball and there runners will be sitting ducks. Gregan and Barnes will get the job done. Our centres are the worlds best. Back three are good. Mail is AAC will be in the XV instead of Mitchell. If they want to play force 'em backs for territory then I think Barnes-Giteau -Latham are quite capable of keeping the Poms in their half. Wallabies by +10.

[/b][/quote]



Fair point about the scrum. If superior it won't guarantee victory. It's an area which can result in spoiling the oppositions quality possession, turnover of ball and penalties/free kicks. Enough to win some games (e.g. Leicester v Munster in the HC cup) Or it can yield nothing, (e.g. Scotland v England 2006 the scrum created lots of chance for England but noone could capitalise). It's the whole package that's important and Australia are superior in more aspects, especially the breakdown and tackle areas (most important areas of the game for me). Plus for England to win they need to out kick Gregan, Latham, Barnes and Giteau. Not an easy task.

 

[polonius]

STFU everyone with the "England might win this ****" rhetoric! I've just figured out that my birthday is tomorrow and thus the game is on my birthday, the Wallabies will win or my b'day is cursed.
[/b]

How have you 'just figured out' it's your birthday tomorrow? Surely this is an event you've know about for some time.

A Wallaby win looks highly likely, so I hope your birthday is celebrated in the traditional way. :bonne-de:

 

[sanzar]

<div class='quotemain'> Am I the only Aussie here who is seriously worried about this match? Maybe I'm placing too much importance on Wilkinson and Robinson being back, but combining that with the losses in our own ranks makes for a very uncertain fixture in my mind... if anything I think England may even have the edge in this match. Barnes was great against Wales, but he's still largely an unknown quantity really and if he can't aim up we could be stuffed! [/b]

Relax mate all is well. NZ have the best scrum in the world and ours competed well enough against them for us to get a fair share of good ball. A fully expect Engalnd to win the scrum battle just as they did against SA. However rugby has changed since 2003. Having the superior scrum doesn't gaurentee victory. Look at Wales they destroyed the Fiji scrum and still lost. Vickerman, Sharpe and Elsom are as good a lineout as anyone else in the world. Our backrow should dominate the breakdown. England will get no quick ball and there runners will be sitting ducks. Gregan and Barnes will get the job done. Our centres are the worlds best. Back three are good. Mail is AAC will be in the XV instead of Mitchell. If they want to play force 'em backs for territory then I think Barnes-Giteau -Latham are quite capable of keeping the Poms in their half. Wallabies by +10.

[/b][/quote]



I hope you're right mate, and it looks a very strong team we've picked - but I still have that nagging feeling... I'm always worried when we play England in any big occaisions these days though, '03 seriously scarred me lol. We do generally seem to have the wood on them in the backs though I'd say - barring Wilkinson that is. Robinson and Latham are probably about even, but the rest I'd say we're stronger. Not sure why Farrell is at inside centre too... could this be a ploy to confuse Aus so they change it at the last minute? Or can Farrell actually handle playing 12 against top liners? Cause if he can't I think he'll have a tough time against Gituea and Mortlock.

 

[toup]

I think the 'massive favourites' tag which has been forced on the aussies is a little unfair. On recent form, sure, they have been the far more impressive of the two sides, but as mentioned above, Barnes will have to face up to the vastly more experienced Wilkinson, which undoubtedly puts even pressure on him on top of the favourites tag.

Whilst dominance at the set piece certainly doesn't guarantee victory, it may just be enough to keep England in with a fighting chance, and let Jonny keep chipping away at the points.

For me, the Farrell selection is a very controversial one, but after Barkley's performance in the last game, it is no surprise. It's time for Faz to step up to the mark and prove himself to his detractors.

I am still not going to entertain too many thoughts about an England win, but I think it's far from the foregone conclusion which many are expecting.

 

[Sébastien Chabal]

The English swine shall perish at the hands of the convicts. My decision is final.

I extend my congratulations toward the Australians at making the RWC sem-finals.

 

[Maccaweeny]

Farrell is ruled out due to injury

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/7027824.stm

 

[sanzar]

Hmmm interesting... they put him in for defence apparently, but he was always gonna be a little lost out there against Gits and Mortlock. Might be a blessing in disguise for England. Unless they put Mike Catt there... what is he still doing in the line up anyway? He was old to still be playing in the last world cup!

 

[Bullitt]

Farrell is ruled out due to injury

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/7027824.stm [/b]

Maybe Flood will finally get his chance now? :unsure:

Who am I bloody kidding, Andrew will still pick Catt or Barlkley. You know, to mix things up a little... <_<

 

[Frostie]

If Barkley is to play 12 we may as well come home now...

 

[Prestwick]

STFU everyone with the "England might win this ****" rhetoric! I've just figured out that my birthday is tomorrow and thus the game is on my birthday, the Wallabies will win or my b'day is cursed. [/b]

Don't look at us! We're not exactly rooting for England, and we're the England fans! :bana:

Does anyone think that the Australian surnames sound about twenty times more posh these days than the English ones?

Sod all this b*llocks about all the Irish going to Australia, what about the English upper classes?! I'm half expecting a son of a sheep farmer with the surname of "Warrell-Barnley-Smith-Dunan-Jones" to be a highlight of Australian rugby any time soon along with the equally working class and mate-like "Archibald-Watkins-Smithe-Jones."

 

[Maccaweeny]

Don't look at us! We're not exactly rooting for England, and we're the England fans! :bana:

Does anyone think that the Australian surnames sound about twenty times more posh these days than the English ones?

Sod all this b*llocks about all the Irish going to Australia, what about the English upper classes?! I'm half expecting a son of a sheep farmer with the surname of "Warrell-Barnley-Smith-Dunan-Jones" to be a highlight of Australian rugby any time soon along with the equally working class and mate-like "Archibald-Watkins-Smithe-Jones."
[/b]

Without a doubt, when my paddy excuse for a father shipped over here from Ulster he used to give his first Australian boss a serving for being "the only Australian aristocrat". His name was Harry Lort-Phillips and he had two sons, Charles and Henry.

Then if you look at the structure of Australian common law, where the most commonly cited statutes were passed by British parliament (ie the Crimes Act 1900 NSW), including our constitution, and then my grandmother who busts a fat whenever someone criticises the Queen, things haven't changed too drastically since federation

 

[Brodizzle]

I'm half expecting a son of a sheep farmer with the surname of "Warrell-Barnley-Smith-Dunan-Jones" to be a highlight of Australian rugby any time soon along with the equally working class and mate-like "Archibald-Watkins-Smithe-Jones."
[/b]

It doesn't work the same here as in the UK, if they have multiple names it simply means that the mother didnt know who the dad was so took both surnames...

 

[BokMagic]

<div class='quotemain'>
I'm half expecting a son of a sheep farmer with the surname of "Warrell-Barnley-Smith-Dunan-Jones" to be a highlight of Australian rugby any time soon along with the equally working class and mate-like "Archibald-Watkins-Smithe-Jones."
[/b]

It doesn't work the same here as in the UK, if they have multiple names it simply means that the mother didnt know who the dad was so took both surnames... [/b][/quote] .... henceforth, from here on in, the Australian right winger will thus be re-christened, right here and now on TRF, to Adam Two Dads!

 

[gjohn85]

<div class='quotemain'> Farrell is ruled out due to injury

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/7027824.stm [/b]

Maybe Flood will finally get his chance now? :unsure:

Who am I bloody kidding, Andrew will still pick Catt or Barlkley. You know, to mix things up a little... <_< [/b][/quote] What wrong with Hipkiss? He probably Englands best centre at the moment. I'd chuck him at outside centre & move the Harry Potter wannabe to inside centre....and while I'm at it, I'd chuck Richards in at scrumhalf.

 

[Bullitt]

I would liuke that but <strike>Andrew</strike> Ashton won't ever deveate from the RFUs plan of sabotaging English rugby (to blame it on the clubs, thus forcing a re-think on "the way forward and bringing in the 10-franchises) by playing a decent centre combination of Flood and Hipkiss.

I'd keep Gommersall though, he's done well so far (all things considered).

 

[Juggernaut]

Any Aussie who is worried is obviously not a true Aussie, it's our DESTINY to knock the AB's out of the cup in the semis, it is just they way these things work... [/b]

and it's the English DESTINY to knock the Aussies out..



Queen Elizabeth II by 8.

 

[Wellycane]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'> RWC95 England beat Aussie to play NZ in the semi final.
NZ went on to play the Springboks. Maybe its more of the same this year! [/b]

Lets hope so that would be great if it is the same result

[/b][/quote]



doubt it buddy... we brought our own cooks this time.... :bleh!:

[/b][/quote]

gud 1