[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
alforth
|
Sat, 15 November 08 18:18 GMT
|
Originally it was to have been Walsh. He got and injury and had to be replaced. In the end I doubt if it made much difference.
|
|
|
Oldmanmartin
|
Sat, 15 November 08 12:17 GMT
|
So whitmo is right, Jonker is the ref. I definitely read that it would be Walsh earlier in the week.
|
|
|
billytay
|
Fri, 14 November 08 11:23 GMT
|
Interesting point about the ball presentation Winkler I have never really considered that as a reason for slow ball my guess the reason we don't present the ball well is lack of faith in the supporting players getting there on time .
Not only will the reffing have a huge part in the outcome but also the place kicking lets hope DC has his kicking boots on and Giteau hasn't .
Watching the Rugby Club last night I get the feeling that the Aussies have improved significantly in their scrummaging which to be fair wouldn't take a lot of doing I just hope Sheridan has got his Mr Angry Head on and not Huggy Bear .
|
-------------------------
alantay |
|
|
Oldmanmartin
|
Fri, 14 November 08 10:13 GMT
|
I'd cheerfully buy Walsh a drink, but it would have to be hemlock and before the game. We know he's a Pom-hater but as a Kiwi maybe he hates the Aussies, too. If the TMO's a Bok it could be interesting (see Youtube). Fingers crossed.
This message edited on Fri, 14 November 08 by Oldmanmartin
|
|
|
whitmo3420
|
Fri, 14 November 08 10:01 GMT
|
Isn't Marius Jonker the ref for The Australia game, and not Steve Walsh?
|
|
|
edrainger
|
Fri, 14 November 08 07:56 GMT
|
you can forget any forward dominance in the scrum. D1ckhead walsh is reffing and he will not allow Eng to dominate in the set piece phases. So then its down to the open game, and with so many new combinations we will not compete with aus. I hope im wrong, but this game will be decided by the ref and we wont be buying him a drink after the game is my tip.
This message edited on Fri, 14 November 08 by edrainger
|
|
|
The Winkler
|
Fri, 14 November 08 02:23 GMT
|
The work at the breakdown to produce quick ball is obviously hugely important, however, I think we put ourselves on the backfoot initially because of our ball presentation. Whether it's because the ball carrier doesn't trust his support will be there, or whether it's a fault in coaching, I don't know. The fact that certain ball carriers, (Nick Easter is a good example) seem to be able to present better ball than others, suggests that the fault lies more with the ball carrier than the support. Granted we don't have a back-row who read the game as well as the likes of Back and Hill, but they're not complete novices.
Back to basics I say.
|
|
|
alforth
|
Thu, 13 November 08 18:30 GMT
|
Fascinating as the backs' performance will be they will be useless without the ball. This will inevitably be dependant on the lineout and rucking performance by the forwards. Australia will not be as naive as the Islanders in the lineout and, even against the Islanders our forwards provided a limited amount of quick ball off the ground
The back five, and especially the back row, will have to lift their game in this area.
Our expected advantage in the set scrum depends on accurate referreing. Allowing the ball to be played from broken and collapsed scrums and ignoring the front rows standing up seems to be more prevalent with SH referees - not, of course, that I am saying that the referee on Saturday will allow anything like that.
|
|
|
billytay
|
Wed, 12 November 08 15:33 GMT
|
I believe it will be won or lost at the breakdown if we can perform much better than last week I fancy our chances if we don't clear out bodies and get quick ball I fear we will come second best.
|
-------------------------
alantay |
|
|
Oldmanmartin
|
Wed, 12 November 08 15:14 GMT
|
Yes, fascinating as the forward battle is likely to be, for me the critical aspect will be whether the new backs pass their first really stern defensive test. If they do it's onwards and upwards; if not it's back to the drawing board.
|
|
|
bobtolly
|
Wed, 12 November 08 12:32 GMT
|
I think Jonno is looking to dominate up front as per '07. That is why he's keeping with the 5-2 split. With the new set up out wide we should be much more dangerous there. The Aus backs will provide a hell of a test for them though.
|
|
|
simoncross
|
Tue, 11 November 08 18:48 GMT
|
I don't think Vickery needs to represent the future for a game against Australia. He won't last 80, for sure, but Stevens will come on at 50 or 60 anyway. Vickery's the better scrummager, it's an Australian weakness, so we've got horses for courses.
Croft vs Haskell is an interesting one. If you're picking on form Haskell shouldn't be anywhere near. I agree that he makes hard yards better than Croft, but then Hill didn't make hard yards - he just wasn't used for that (for me Hill is the joint-best backrow forward in history, BTW!). Croft is the better bet for a wide game, because he's got the better pace. That's probably what's got him the nod, alongside his lineout and restart work.
|
|
|
billytay
|
Tue, 11 November 08 14:28 GMT
|
Simon not convinced about Croft he's great in the lineout and is a tremendous athlete but he's picked as a backrow forward and for me he doesn't do enough of the hard yards and knocking people back .
Richard Hill was the perfect size for a six for me and I just think Haskell is a better option as i believe he proved in NZ on tour.
|
-------------------------
alantay |
|
|
gkbradley
|
Tue, 11 November 08 13:57 GMT
|
Can't agree about Vickery. Great player that he once was I wouldn't have him in the EPS - he hardly represents the future does he? Can't last 80 mins either - time to bring in some new blood I think and this game and the last would have been a good time to do it, even from the bench.
Agreed about Kennedy tough, deserves to keep his place - I would have droped Borthwick for Shaw but sadly he's been made el capitano.
Back row I may have started Haskell in place of Easter but I guess the thinking is that Easter will link better with Care.
Also agree about Tait (is he fully fit?) or Hipkiss should be in for Noon and I would have thought about giving Flood a start as Cips and Flutey were hardly outstanding last week.
No complaints about the back line although I think they will be more severly tested this week.
Don't understand the 5/2 split again for the replacements and all in all I am a bit disappointed that Johnno is not more adventurous.
|
-------------------------
gkb |
|
|
simoncross
|
Tue, 11 November 08 13:09 GMT
|
I agree with Vickery over Stevens to start against Aus. Stevens still isn't carrying well enough to justify a start when his scrummaging isn't as good as Vickery's. Plus, Jonno will probably want to start with his dominant RWC07 props against them.
Kennedy is a bit unlucky, especially as Palmer wasn't noticeably more effective when he came on on Sat. If Borthwick hadn't been captain, I suspect there'd be as much case for dropping him. In either case, if you want to swap lineout prowess for sheer power, then surely Shaw would start, rather than benching.
Tait is unlucky not to have a go at 13 ahead of Noon, but there's surely a case for keeping the backs as they were. And given the 5:2 bench split, no option to bench Tait. Shame.
Croft is the right size for 6. I know that Eng & Aus have been playing two 7s for years, but nobody else has. And if you go back in England's recent history, you find plenty of 6s the size of Croft: Dallaglio (96 to 00), Rodber, etc.
This message edited on Tue, 11 November 08 by simoncross
|
|
|
Oldmanmartin
|
Tue, 11 November 08 13:08 GMT
|
Well, it shows what I know! I'm surprised Kennedy has been dropped altogether. I was confident last week's front five would have the wood over Australia in the scrummage, and just hope we can get enough good lineout ball. I don't think Vickery for Stevens is a significant change.
I'm surprised that the 5-2 bench split is retained.
This message edited on Tue, 11 November 08 by Oldmanmartin
|
|
|
billytay
|
Tue, 11 November 08 12:44 GMT
|
I wouldn't argue with the inclusion of Palmer he's probably in better form than Shaw and he gives us a bit more ballast than Kennedy who should be given plenty of opportunities in the future .
Not convinced about Vickery over Stevens the only real benefit is Stevens is more of anm impact player off the ebnch than Vickery who is probably slightly the better scrummager .
After 5 tries I think he did the right thing sticking with the backs .
|
-------------------------
alantay |
|
|
bobtolly
|
Tue, 11 November 08 12:36 GMT
|
Vickery in for Stephens and Palmer in for Kennedy. Wasn't aware these two did anything wrong last Saturday.
|
|
|
billytay
|
Tue, 11 November 08 12:26 GMT
|
Oldman sound logic but I'll lay you a little wager that he makes changes in both the second and backrow ,Narraway is ruled out I'm afraid with the hamstring problem and I can't see him picking Crane over Easter for any of the SH teams I wouldn't.
In the backs he may well bring in Hipkiss for Noon again I wouldn't but this to me is a more likely change .
|
-------------------------
alantay |
|
|
Oldmanmartin
|
Mon, 10 November 08 16:48 GMT
|
Johnno will want to be dominant at the set pieces, but while Shaw might be more powerful than Kennedy in the scrummages and in the loose he will want his best lineout. Which means Mears, Kennedy and Croft will probably stay.
I think he might bring in Narraway, if fit, or Crane for Easter, and Tait (again if fit) or Hipkiss for Noon, but otherwise he'll keep a winning side.
|
|
|
billytay
|
Mon, 10 November 08 16:32 GMT
|
I know Croft is flavour of the month I think Stuart Barnes mentioned that the England coaching staff say they feel he can develop into something special but I think he is too tall to be a really effective No 6 he reminds me of Forrester who also lacked real power .I would not be surprised if Haskell isn't in the team for Saturday and although it could be at No 8 I think although Easter lacks a bit of pace he has a bit of dog in him and a great pair of hands , a bit like Deano who made up for his lack of pace with nouse and power.
I think also that Kennedy had a pretty reasonable debut he is especially good in the lineout but I think he again lacks a bit of power Simon Shaw may well get the nod over him on Saturday as we will want to demolish the Aussie scrum again and he also carries better .
|
-------------------------
alantay |
|
|
simoncross
|
Mon, 10 November 08 14:30 GMT
|
How Steve Walsh is still refereeing international rugby - let alone a game between a NH and a SH side - is beyond me. It's a disgrace.
|
|
|
Oldmanmartin
|
Mon, 10 November 08 10:23 GMT
|
I agree that the back row weren't as effective as usual. Was this because Croft and Rees are unaccustomed to playing with Easter? Both are probably more comfortable with Narraway, and Croft of course partners Crane at Leicester. But back row is the least of our worries, we can probably put out 3 separate quality units here.
Are we agreed that Noon doesn't fit with the backs around him? It's rather like trying to put a Ferrari gearbox into a McLaren or vice versa. I'd prefer Tait or Hipkiss there, or move Armitage up and play Abendanon or Tait (when fit again) at fullback. It would perhaps weaken the defence, but you can rarely have everything.
Unbelievably, I read that Steve Walsh is refereeing the Australia game. We'll have to watch the penalty count, and hope he'll allow our props to scrummage. But if he does we could be on uncontested scrums by half time.
|
|
|
alforth
|
Sun, 09 November 08 16:55 GMT
|
Guys, did anyone else think the back row, omce again, looked lacklustre and underpowered? They were late at the breakdown and not especially energetic in support and at the restarts. I suppose Eaater was OK but I did not see much evidence of the supposed club-based understanding with Care and he (Easter) looked clumsy at times.
Quick release from the rucks will have to improve - this is a problem we have had for some time - some is due to supporting forwards not arriving quickly and in sufficient numbers but also ball-carriers tend to go to ground awkwardly and facing the wrong way , resulting in them having to lay the ball back from under their arm or between their legs.
I anyone agrees with any of this could we still have a problem with the forward's coach?
|
|
|
offbreak
- offbreak.jacko@virgin.net
|
Sun, 09 November 08 15:06 GMT
|
Very impressed with the back 3. I was really impressed with Sackeys all round game, his work rate was superb. Care was very promising and i thought Kennedy had a decent game. I would like to have seen england keep the ball in hand abit more when we got into the islanders half, too many cross field kicks and garry owens where there was space to move the ball! England need to speed up the ball abit but still a vast improvement. Massive step up next week though! Hipkiss in for Noon
|
|
|
[
NEXT
|
LAST
]
|
|
|
