June International Test: Australia vs. England [1st Test] (11/06/2016)

[spartan32]

Going to throw it out there and say this doesn't look like the best Aussie Team we have seen, No Toomua (who IMO is one of the best 12's on form), DHP and Horne, is no Tomane - Spieght or Nairyavoro. Though with players like Foley, Falou and phibbs and the bang in form Karevi, they'll still cause us problems. I think though the Tight Five can be got at, the Brummies lads have slipped slightly lately and debutants in the second row will be under a lot of pressure. But of course "That back row doe", insanely good and with Mcmahon off the bench will make life for England very difficult. Wondering what the aussie's think on the team, though i know Chieka's hands are slightly tied by injury.

Prediction: England by 5 - The Faz man will bring it home..

It's a fair point. I've been looking so hard at England I haven't really taken the time to assess the Aussies. They are missing some big names and are blooding some new boys in a very big game against a settled England side all of whom have at least some big game experience under their belts.

Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that all the Aussie lads have some talent, but the step up to test rugby is a big one. I'm sure EJ will be looking to exploit those new boys. Hit them hard and play with real intensity and start forcing errors out of them. It has certainly created a good opportunity for us to win.

I don't think I'd dare call the game, but I think it's gonna be cracker.

 

[Maverick1987]

Nah... because Launch has already played better than Kruis has at international level.

I think you guys are playing down just how good Kruis has been this year tbh . I'd rather all 3 play with Itoje in the back row but if I was only picking 2 I'd pick Krutoje at the moment ...

 

[tdh24]

I wonder how much they the tactics are a reflection of the Lions' success against Aus. That was a poor Australia team but the lions wore them down physically over three tests with the greater physicality and squad depth. By the third test in particular the Aussies couldn't cope with the physical challenge. Everyone has talked about how crucial it is that England win the first test but actually it may be that the advantage comes later.

I reckon Eddie has picked two locks so that his team can go full bore but also so that he can keep players fresh enough over the three tests. Launch bury and Lawes are a physical threat.

He also doesn't see us chasing the game successfully by going would play into poopers hands.

 

[Every Time Ref]

But if there is no meaningful measurement of them in isolation, how are they a meaningful unit?

Still - lets look at interdependency.

Is the lock dependent on his other lock at scrum time? No more than the prop in front of him, with the flanker besides him and the hooker in front of him also quite important.

Is the lock dependent on his other lock at the line out? He is most dependent on the hooker and the two men lifting him. The latter may include the other lock, particularly in a short lineout, but its unlikely. We're looking at props in particular and the back row as well. He's a bit dependent on the other jumpers to distract the opposition, but there's no guarantee the other jumper they're most fixated on is a lock.

Is the lock dependent on his other lock when breaking from a set piece? Piece of string. Maybe they hit the same ruck. Maybe one player is lining up as the next carrier while the other clears the ruck with a centre. Maybe one lock clears the ruck while the other lurks on the blindside. That's assuming a scrum. If its a maul then, well, anyone could emerge first. If its from a lineout, its not unusual to see the jumper stay out on that wing as the player sweeps to the other side, at which point its not unusual to see the locks with most of the pitch between them.

I really don't see a huge amount of inter-dependence there. Maybe the locks are more inter-dependent, but not to any meaningful degree.

Whether they hit the same ruck, whether one holds off, whether one carries and the other clears him ... all of these are examples of the two men working together, as a unit, no?

In my opinion the two locks have broadly similar roles, and therefore both fit into a niche of what the team requires. There are variations in style sure, but that's part of it - the way their styles mesh makes them more or less effective as a unit.

Actually part of what makes their role unique compared to the rest of the pack, for me, is how they are intrinsically linked to both the back row and the front row. They are part of the tight 5, and what you might call the back 5 of the scrum. A unique place in the team which 2 people fill together.

Going to throw it out there and say this doesn't look like the best Aussie Team we have seen, No Toomua (who IMO is one of the best 12's on form), DHP and Horne, is no Tomane - Spieght or Nairyavoro. Though with players like Foley, Falou and phibbs and the bang in form Karevi, they'll still cause us problems. I think though the Tight Five can be got at, the Brummies lads have slipped slightly lately and debutants in the second row will be under a lot of pressure. But of course "That back row doe", insanely good and with Mcmahon off the bench will make life for England very difficult. Wondering what the aussie's think on the team, though i know Chieka's hands are slightly tied by injury.

Prediction: England by 5 - The Faz man will bring it home..

I gather Kerevi is a big smash it up unit rather than a ball player? Interesting choice, because this fundamentally alters the Aussie gameplan. They've usually gone for a playmaker at 12.

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

Got to say I'm glad they've not gone for a playmaker at 12. Foley and Beale (he was at 12 wasn't he?) ripped us a new one at the World Cup.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Got to say I'm glad they've not gone for a playmaker at 12. Foley and Beale (he was at 12 wasn't he?) ripped us a new one at the World Cup.

Giteau, not Beale

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

Giteau, not Beale

Wasn't Beale subbed on at 12?

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Not against England I don't think. I'll have a check, but I'm fairly sure he always came on at Wing/FB.

Update:

Beale went on for Horne on the wing after 11 minutes. Giteau was 12 the whole game.
However, against Fiji Beale did have 8 minutes at 12.

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

Not against England I don't think. I'll have a check, but I'm fairly sure he always came on at Wing/FB.

Fullback sounds right, Giteau scored at the death so he definitely wasn't subbed off.

Reading the live update match report is like ancient history- it's encouraging really; Parling, Tom Youngs, Wood, Wigglesworth, all gone and buried.

Edit: Ah ****, wing.

Edit edit: ^ what's wrong with feck?

 

[Peat]

Whether they hit the same ruck, whether one holds off, whether one carries and the other clears him ... all of these are examples of the two men working together, as a unit, no?

No, because there are other people in the unit in all of those situations.

For what its worth, in the opening 20 minutes against France in the '15 6N, out of England's 18 rucks, both locks were involved (either as carrier or clearer) just 4 times.

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

No, because there are other people in the unit in all of those situations.

For what its worth, in the opening 20 minutes against France in the '15 6N, out of England's 18 rucks, both locks were involved (either as carrier or clearer) just 4 times.

If locks aren't a unit, how come the front row always turns around and shouts at us both whenever the scrum goes backwards? Hmm? Hmm?!

 

[g6mcg]

Fair to say locks are a unit in as much as there are requirements at least one of them has to fill? I can definitely think of lock combinations that haven't worked (usually both too lightweight imo, but I'm sure there have been disasters because neither are exceptional jumpers).

 

[Peat]

If locks aren't a unit, how come the front row always turns around and shouts at us both whenever the scrum goes backwards? Hmm? Hmm?!

Because front rows aren't that smart?

Fair to say locks are a unit in as much as there are requirements at least one of them has to fill? I can definitely think of lock combinations that haven't worked (usually both too lightweight imo, but I'm sure there have been disasters because neither are exceptional jumpers).

In that sense, yes-ish. The strength of the front row changes how strong the locks need to be; the athleticism levels of the back row changes how strong they have to be in the line out, as does the accuracy of the hooker. Kicking half-backs require set-piece strength from their locks, running half-backs want locks who can, well, run. I mean, yeah, you need X, Y and Z from your locks, but the exact requirements of X, Y and Z depend on the players around them. Its not unheard of to find teams with two massive locks and two rangy back-rows who do most of the jumping.

But then, I'm not saying the second row isn't a unit. I'm saying its not a meaningful unit because everything they do is so dependent on other players.

 

[spartan32]

Doesn't modern rugby mean that everyone from 1 to 15 should be playing as a unit, taking responsibility for carrying, clearing out, defending, etc etc. There's no, your job my job mindset anymore (other then set piece of course). This is why NZ are so bloody good. Everyone on the pitch can pretty much do everything. I wouldn't wonder that their front row could probably kick bloody goals if they had to.

 

[j'nuh]

Doesn't modern rugby mean that everyone from 1 to 15 should be playing as a unit, taking responsibility for carrying, clearing out, defending, etc etc. There's no, your job my job mindset anymore (other then set piece of course). This is why NZ are so bloody good. Everyone on the pitch can pretty much do everything. I wouldn't wonder that their front row could probably kick bloody goals if they had to.

No, it means that everyone should have good/great basics plus specialities that they are great/exceptional at.

 

[spartan32]

No, it means that everyone should have good/great basics plus specialities that they are great/exceptional at.

That's sort of what I was getting at.

 

[XIII]

I gather Kerevi is a big smash it up unit rather than a ball player? Interesting choice, because this fundamentally alters the Aussie gameplan. They've usually gone for a playmaker at 12.

Kerevi is being tagged as a battering ram by a lot of people, but he is more than that actually, he is not like lilo or Beale, but is far from being a player like manu or Roberts, he has great footwork, is fast af and is always looking for the offload, he jam the defense as a last resource. I think he is going to make a lot of space for Folau and TK.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Kerevi is being tagged as a battering ram by a lot of people, but he is more than that actually, he is not like lilo or Beale, but is far from being a player like manu or Roberts, he has great footwork, is fast af and is always looking for the offload, he jam the defense as a last resource. I think he is going to make a lot of space for Folau and TK.

As an Englishman, Kerevi is the player who scares me most in that Aussie side. If he can get on Burrell's outside shoulder he will bust holes, and with players like Kuridrani and Folau outside him, it will result in tries.

 

[Salad dodger]

If Lancaster had selected this team on the back of recent club form and the Wales game there would be hell on!

How can Haskell be playing but Launchbury not???

To me this pack can be perfectly balanced by Itoje playing 6 and Launchbury coming in...who plays 7 you can argue about!

Burrell at 12 seems a backward step....where is Slade as the second playmaker??? (Maybe I've missed an injury).

Brown needs to play with patience and protect possession rather than looking for the golden play all the time and he'll be fine.

Just to pick up on a point above from the WC....the fact that Parling was selected was a bigger mistake than Burgess! Tbh I'd rather have Wood at 7 than Robshaw or Haskell.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

If Lancaster had selected this team on the back of recent club form and the Wales game there would be hell on!

How can Haskell be playing but Launchbury not???

To me this pack can be perfectly balanced by Itoje playing 6 and Launchbury coming in...who plays 7 you can argue about!

Burrell at 12 seems a backward step....where is Slade as the second playmaker??? (Maybe I've missed an injury).

Brown needs to play with patience and protect possession rather than looking for the golden play all the time and he'll be fine.

Just to pick up on a point above from the WC....the fact that Parling was selected was a bigger mistake than Burgess! Tbh I'd rather have Wood at 7 than Robshaw or Haskell.

Have you not seen Wood play recently? Haskell and Robshaw aren't great, but they're better than Wood. As for the comment on Parling, with the line out going the way it was they had to bring in a real line out operator of a second row, and at the time that was Parling. In the loose he was pretty useless, especially when compared to Lawes and Launchbury, but had he not been on the pitch the set piece would've gone to s***.

As for the bit about if Lancaster picked this team there would be hell on, yes there would, but that's because Lancaster never earned the right to not have his team questioned. In his first tournament as an England coach, EJ took us to a Grand Slam. Although I don't agree with all the selections made, I trust that Eddie has put out the best team he can. Maybe if this tour goes dramatically wrong we can start to doubt him and his selections. Until then though, I think we all just need to trust him and the team he's put out. A lot will be revealed later today.