Smith, obviously pissed. Is this why he had an off game?
1. Benn Robinson: His low scrummaging caused the poms problems again. Also featured in the loose 7
2. Stephen Moore: He must like it over here because he’s starting to feature again like he did last tour 7
3. Ben Alexander: Tidy in the scrum 6
4. James Horwill: Had a very solid day around the park, although would like to see more of the old rampage 5
5. Mark Chisholm: Also good in defence, but ball running and line-out not up to snuff 4
6. Rocky Elsom (c): Our best line-out option, and tackled his guts out. 7
7. George Smith: Can’t remember the last time I said Smith had an off game at open-side, but this was one. Off the pace 4
8. Wycliff Palu: Close to his rampaging best. Also destructive in defence, including at the ruck 8
9. Will Genia: Excellent all-round game, sniffed out his try like a veteran 9 G&GR’s Wallaby man of the match
10. Matt Giteau: Wasn’t the star of the show, but rock solid defence and experience showed. 6
11. Peter Hynes: Kept himself busy. 6
12. Quade Cooper: Always looked like something was going to happen with the ball in hand. I think he may have made a dominant tackle as well! 7
13. Digby Ioane: Set out as if he was going to do it all by himself – full of commitment and bustle. If only he’d offloaded to Marcia! 6
14. Drew Mitchell: Knows what he needs to do, when. 6
15. Adam Ashley-Cooper: Proof that one Aussie man is worth 2 poms 7
Rating system (no half marks):
10 – A legendary performance to go down in the history books
9 – Man of the match worthy performance
8 – Outstanding
7 – Good game, great in parts
6 – Solid performance
5 – Average – ho hum
4 – Below par
3 – Had a bad game
2 – Tell your story walking pal
1 – A complete joke
Tags: player ratings
It wasn’t really the day for George Smith to bring his “B” game on to the park. He might have to start off the bench again against Ireland at this rate, because Pocock brought a bit of fire to the defence when he came on.
Interesting comment of Rocky’s during the press conference in that they decided to pull back from the breakdown in the second half to ensure that they didn’t give the ref too many excuses to ping them. This on account of the confidence they felt in their own defence against the England attack.
Not sure that this was a great strategy, but their commitment to the tackle ball in the first half was commendable.
I thought TPN’s throwing was good. A 6 just for that. Ironically I thought his throwing was better but Moore’s running far better!
I was happy enough with Elsom and Ioane both of whom I thought looked like playing themselves into it.
If AAC had kicked with a little more direction he might have deserved at least 8. He had a case even so, surely – some great grabs, some penetrating kicking (although not as good as Genia) an enormous try, ..?
And doesn’t your summary of Horwill suggest a 6? ‘Very solid ..’
I think Chisolm should swap with Mumm next game.
Very harsh on Smith. He didn’t do anything wrong. Didn’t pilfer anything but linked superbly with the backs and hit hard in defense. I also think our locks were excellent around the pitch. Noone in the tight 5 deserves less than 6.
I woulda liked to mark Kev and Chis up but the lineout’s still a clusterfuck.
And Smith came second to Moody.
i agree with gagger. moody won the day against george. a few times poms ran right around smith. didn’t look good, but maybe he was never going to make the tackle anyways so a little hard to judge.
i agree with gagger too, moody got the better of georgie most of the game. but i dont think that means smith had a poor game, rather moody had a blinder. moody was the standout english forward for mine. smiths four is pretty harsh.
i was impressed by genias boot, by both the power of his kicks, the timing and the precision. but on a side note, i think banahan was one of the worst backs on the field. completely shown up.
Smith had at least two missed tackles that I can remember and a knock-on. He should have slammed that weedy centre instead of allowing him to do his one good thing for the game. also knocked on a bit, I didn’t think it was his best game.
Hmmm, thought you may be harsh on Big Kev. I thought it was physical. I thought his running was excellent, in fact I think it was his strong charge that made the space for Will Genius ton score.
Overall, a good effort from the boys, with the final result not reflecting the dominance we enjoyed, particularly after the break. And let’s face it, AACs try (whilst inspiring) was pretty soft. But a good away win in an important game. Bring it on.
Chisholm is however a bit of a weak link at the moment, with limited involvment in general play and not much go forward.
Generally however, I thought the forwards were average and continue to leave the ball carrier exposed at times. At one stage we were at the pom 22 and were turned over because no forwards were supporting the ball carrier. Its the close support the forwards provide for NZ and the Boks which gives them a huge advantage at the breakdown, and ultimately in possession. We need to work on this. Hopefully its not a fitness/conditioning issue.
We still exhibited that frustrating tendency to lose possession at critical times and bombing scoring opportunities.
Overall though, a commendable effort and Genia was simply outstanding. Ioane hit hard in defense and seemed to be everywhere and Cooper asked some good questions in attack and moved the ball well. His defense also stood up well.
Hope we don’t fall foul of the ref (again) against Ireland – An 8-2 penalty count in the first half hurt us.
Anyone know who is reffing the Ireland game?
A Mr. J. Kaplan, I believe.
Excellent. My favourite ref…
[...] Wallabies vs England player ratings Categories: Grand Slam Tour, International Tags: australia, england [...]
Maybe we need a 12 point rating system next time. I thought Mitchell and Ioane out played Hynes, all on 6.
Surely there was something between their efforts.
Hynes rushed out in defence too much for my liking, I always imagined soft tries down his wing as would be the case if we were playing Larkham and not Wilkinson.
Surely you’re kiding that Mitchell outplayed Hynes? I think you’re alone on that one…
You don’t remember a simple rolling away penalty giving England a soft penalty in front of the sticks?
That was for a non-dangerous dangerous tackle. The commentators got it wrong.
Though I also thought Mitchell played well.
well, he still didn’t roll away.
I thought Mitchell had a good game. His involvement was limited by Giteau’s reluctance to pass the ball left.
Not alone, i thought Mitchell out played Hynes as well. HE just needs more ball. If only Gits had passed injstead of running into Johnny spasticson.
This is what i’m talking about, slightly more differentiation
12 – A legendary performance to go down in the history books
11 – Man of the match worthy performance
10 – Outstanding
9 – Good game, great in parts
8 – Solid performance
7 – Tried hard but not much went his way.
6 – Average – for him
5 – Average – ho hum
4 – Below par
3 – Had a bad game
2 – Tell your story walking pal
1 – A complete joke
1. Benn Robinson 9
2. Stephen Moore 8
3. Ben Alexander 7
4. James Horwill 5
5. Mark Chisholm 4
6. Rocky Elsom 7
7. George Smith 4
8. Wycliff Palu 10
9. Will Genia 11
10. Matt Giteau 5
11. Peter Hynes 5
12. Quade Cooper 9
13. Digby Ioane 7
14. Drew Mitchell6
15. AA Cooper 9
Most other sites have rankings out of 10, we should use the 12 as there are more factors, explanations and we don’t use half marks.
Could become a thing for the future as players seek to achieve the illustrious ‘gagr 12′.
George has fallen victim to the classic paparazzi tactic of “Eyes half closed means they are drunk, stoned etc”. Have a look in any gossip mag and you will see it.
It was good that the boys stepped it up in the second half instead of faltering like they have been. Although there still seems to be a fear of that white line. No fear isn’t the right word. Umm maybe uncertainty or a sense of panic when they get within 5. (yes there are exceptions but how many times over this year’s games have they knocked on, lost the ball, ignored the outside man when they are right there).
Actually I think there were almost a few cases of white line fever in that second half, even from Elsom. There were scoring opportunities that went begging there. Anyone heard of the forecast for this weekend?
A few showers. Afternoon clouds. Mild 11 C
The Cat deserved more than a seven for the sheer fact that he wore his number ones to the post match press conference!!
AND he had the top button his shirt done up too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Casho – you’ve found a flaw in our rating system!
Surely that’s points off for a prop taking pride in their appearance? Next think he’ll have vanity “BENN1″ number plates on his ute…. oh
I think you have under rated Digby’s contribution. At last we see a replacement centre who instills sufficient confidence in his fellow players to allow the ball to move out the backline. He also allowed Ashley Cooper to play where he plays best at full back.
Having said that and before we get carried away with how great our players are, they were not playing much of a team. This is possibly the worst England team since I can remember.
Well it’s not the worst one I can remember, but maybe on paper last weekends mob weren’t the best, but they played with great heart throughout.
Nabley – I thought Diggers was excellent, and was close to the best on the field, just his decision making got clouded by his desire to lead from the front (not a bad quality to inject into this team).
Of the 3 options he had, he chose the one that blew the try.
I think kicking would have blown it too.
Couldn’t agree less, Nabley. AAC is a good player but the only reason he is playing fullback is that he is the only player Deans has who can fill in adequately at 15. His best position is 13 or possibly 14 where he doesn’t have any kicking duties. Deans needs to find himself a regular reliable fullback so he can play AAC at 13 and Digby on the wing (or vice versa if you really insist). That I would like to see.
Put Gits in 15, that oughta get a dog up him.
Agree that AAC’s best postion is 13. His kicking isnt very good. We def need a specialised fullback! Diggers 13 and AAC 14 might actually work better since AAC never passes it (not that im complaining since he constantly gets over the advantage line).
Yep AAC should move into 13, Diggers to 14 they can swap around depending on the play. QC and Gits swap a lot in the game which was good to see. Perhaps QC could move to Fullback when Barnes is fit, I know Deans in looking at Beale at 15, him and QC are players of the same mold so I don’t see why not.
Will never understand why Gerard was allowed to leave, he was easily Australia’s form 15 in the Super 14.
I think Diggers needs to;
A. PASS THE BALL, better to pass and give two players on the outside 95% chance of scoring rather than running at the line with about 70% chance of scoring. He will learn
B. Stay back from the line a bit, he play too inline with QC and Gits if he stayed back even a meter he would get a lot more speed and drive in this attack
C. run a an angle, watch o’driscoll, mortlock and especially AAC they run a full head of steam at different angles to the attack
The depth point is a really good one – when Elsom got caught Hynes overran him then too, to take one very notable example.
Especially compared to the 1984 video put up last week – they passed flat and ran on beautifully.
I actually kinda agree with K Dog that I would prefer Gits getting involved from a loop play. That said he HAS to take the ball up otherwise their defence has too easy a time of it.
Archie I do not think you have followed the development of Ashley Cooper in the Wallabies. His best games have always been at fullback. Given the flat attack they play, he can not build up momentum to do what he does best, score tries Lomu like carrying half the opposition.
No, I don’t think Gits does have to take the ball up. That’s a League concept, imho. The more you spread the ball wide the greater potential there is for holes to start appearing closer in, because the defence thinks that it’s always going to go wide and that’s where opposition 10, 12 and 7 start drifting to.
If anyone should bust it up it’s 13, something that Stirlo used to do magnificently. When this keeps happening the defence starts to think that’s where you’re trying to punch the holes.
Oh but I have. The guy will play his heart out wherever you put him. My point is simply that he is no more than a stop-gap 15, and has to play there only because there is no-one else to do the job. Deans’ idea of turning JOC into a test standard 15 was just too early for the kid and has to be rated a failure this year. AAC lacks two (to my mind) essential qualities for a 15 – he can’t kick well, either defensively or tactically, and he is not a distributor of the ball in counter-attack. That’s why he was not first-choice 15 for the Brumbies this year. What he is is a top-class linebreaker and finisher, which is why he should be at 13 or 14. Ideally (ie given fitness and availability) I would have liked to have seen Shepherd or Gerrard at 15, Ioane and AAC on the wings, and Mortlock at 13.
George had a game to forget about.. he was totally outplayed by Moody. I would have subd him for Bam Bam and left Cliffy at 8. Thought Cliffy had a good game.
Also felt that Gits held onto the ball too many times and should have got his back line going. Was it white line fever. A reasonable game but the Poms were bad. Also too many times I have got excited about the Wallabies then they have gone and blown it. lets hope they can back it up this week
I thought Cliffy had his best game in a long time, however he always runs out of puff. George has not been his best for a while. Start Bam Bam again and when Cliffy runs out of puff put Mumm at 6 and Elsom at 8. George can come on with 15 minutes to go if we need him. Harsh but we have to pick on form, in a grand slam we can’t wait for players to find form.
Gits is differnet he is still solid and there is one I REPEAT NO ONE who can fill his shoes
Nice contrast to the Saffers who rate themselves higher than than when they loose.
Apart from Elsom’s lineout work and 1 tackle, I thought he had a below par game (4 on both scales). He was part of the same back row that was outplayed in the first 30 mins. Smith worked hard off the ball (pressure on JW and filling in in defence) and, apart from the dropped ball and missing one tackle when he was the only chaser of a kick, I thought he was pretty good. He made some very heavy tackles.
Elsom and Smith’s lack of impact at the breakdown will also have something to do with the refereeing problems in the first half and the decision not to be as aggressive at the breakdown in the second half.
I gave him higher marks based on my thought that Elsom has never really dominated in wallaby colours.
Below par is saying he usually does better for AUS. Which I dont think he has done consistantly.
Ie, Gits 5 could be another players 7.
Two- dads AAC is unreal, and the first back picked after “I speak 4 languages” Gits.
Not sure if im a fan of Diggers at 13; Mortlock could drag 4 people from the 22 over the try line and lets face it so did ACC on the weekend. How Leone fuct that one up over the weekend is scary. id put him on the wing.
CAn someone please explain WTF is happening with the line out? with Big Kev, Chisolm and Elsom we have a pretty tall combination. Moore is a proven thrower too???
backrow needs to start with Cliffy, Smith and Elsom again. I agree that Smith is being targeted by the media. he didnt have an outstanding game but give the guy a week’s break! Big Kev not exactly performing week in week out.
everyones bagging out that English side, but seriously was that their 3 string side? are there really 27 people out injured? Are we kidding ourseleves that we won a game that we should have won comfortably?
Elsom in his element, I think his performance over the weekend has actually improved his game.
I would just like to make a small point about QC. While he certainly changing my mind about his quality, he does have fairly serious flaws still. His distribution was excellent and he poked holes in the English, his defence is still lacking. Witness James Haskell running right over him during the second half. If this is the guy the Wallabies want marking Ma’a Nonu in the future, he’d better work on that. Still, excellent game from him, put himself right at the top of consideration for the 12 shirt.
To be hair, James Haskell is a behemoth of a man who had a full head of steam when he hit. QC’s defence in general play was otherwise much improved.
Agree, and its not as though they didn’t test that channel out earlier on. There were a few pushes at Cooper earlier on which he held firm on, if any of them had gotten through they would have been attacking him all night. It really could have been floodgates open and a completely different story. Not saying he shouldn’t continue to work on his defence of course. Many small-ish inside backs are testament to the fact that you can grow into a rock solid defender even if its not a skill you naturally have in your youth and at the beginning of your career (Barnes, Giteau)
Ma’a tends to think a bit more about what he is doing these days and puts an angle on his run to give his centre the chance of an outside break.
This allows his opposite the opportunity of a side on tackle which Berrick was able to handle and so will QC. Ma’a no longer tries the bash and crash approach from set play because he’s been hauled over the coals for losing the ball in the tackle too many times.
But nobody is going to stop Nonu five metres out from the line.
Anyway we’re not rating him are we?
Neither Berrick or Quade would be able to handle him in a head on confrontation.
Bullshit most backs (not QC on form to date but Barnes has been there done that) in the Southern Hemisphere (and all the Irish or French centres I can think of) will stop Nonu dead in his tracks anywhere on the field.
totally agree. The best part of Barnes’ game, and the reason he is currently ahead of QC on the depth charge, I think, it his excellent defense.
The naysayers talking down George Smith are on the wrong track. He wasn’t as prominent as Moody, who was the standout English forward, but by no means was he ‘below par’. His defensive workload looked OK and he was doing his bit at the breakdown.
George has been shouldering more than his fair share of the load over recent years in an under performing side. I think our expectations of him are that, as a world class player, he will be ‘outstanding’ in every game he plays. Well, that’s just not how it always works. He’s had one game in how many months? We need to stick with him as the run-on No 7.
I’m not saying replace him. But these ratings are subjective to the players average game.
If George played like Chis, George would probably get a 2.
If Benn played like Baxter he’d get a 1.
Agreed; possibly he should score a 5or6 in the revised rankings – i.e. “average for him”.
Barnes got good at tackling from league, look up tony carrol if you want to see who he tested himself on. I think barnes was always a good defender, he just proves how important technique is, not just bulk.
I thought it was shane webcke. But it also shows that tackling is a learned skill
Not to mention that Johnny Wilkinson (re)proved that all by himself…
After watching the game again last night. I thought Alexander was over rated, he is consitantly caught not going through the gate and his generally play was average. I think he deserved a 4 or a 5.
Action, bring Dunning on earlier.
Chisholm; rating was right, Mumm should start in his place, better lineout jumper and better around the park
I love George but based on performance on the weekend you would start Pocock
Hynes had a good game and needs more ball, Mitchell was also good and should be doing most of the kicking from the back three.
I also think Ioane was generally overrated in this game. Still think he should start as Cross has even less impact.