Australia v England Test 1 Sat. July 2 @1955
- Thread starter Hawko
- Start date
- Status
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
As for the Swain incident...
I don't want to excuse Swain's reaction, because it was dumb and worthy of a red card... but it should never have come to that with the hair pulling so blatantly obvious watching live, and that close to the sideline it shouldn't have been missed by the officials.
I don't want to excuse Swain's reaction, because it was dumb and worthy of a red card... but it should never have come to that with the hair pulling so blatantly obvious watching live, and that close to the sideline it shouldn't have been missed by the officials.
Marce
John Thornett (49)
You can't blame lads typing with high heart rate. It's easy to come here after 4 hours with the game in your pocket and say how the supporters must behave
??????? What?????
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
I hear you but still would not be against Noah starting and Quade off the bench next test.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
The first 20 minutes we looked all at sea and maybe that was blowing cobwebs out. Key positive was only 6-3 down despite that which yes reflects England not the form 6 nations team. Obviously got better under adversity (ie red card).
Given the way we were playing in those first 20
Minutes and then all the injuries and red card, despite calling out with that red card we had nearly won against wales with 14 men my natural initial reaction was we were screwed. I think most punters would not have bet on the wallabies to win at that point. That is what made it a game for the ages as players stepped up under adversity and the bench was excellent.
This is the third game under Rennie where we have excelled playing with 14 men for most of the match, and indeed probably almost played better post red card then pre red card.
Given the way we were playing in those first 20
Minutes and then all the injuries and red card, despite calling out with that red card we had nearly won against wales with 14 men my natural initial reaction was we were screwed. I think most punters would not have bet on the wallabies to win at that point. That is what made it a game for the ages as players stepped up under adversity and the bench was excellent.
This is the third game under Rennie where we have excelled playing with 14 men for most of the match, and indeed probably almost played better post red card then pre red card.
Last edited:
Ignoto
John Thornett (49)
Up until Jordan's try I was a tad dejected. We weren't playing great rugby and the Poms just played the classic wrap around move.
Once we took the lead the game really went up a notch and forced both teams to play.
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
I thought it a bloody good win for Wallabies, but for me apart from them winning (as I still support them against most teams) the game was pretty average . Poms I thought showed so little imagination, I think I could of set up the defence to stop them
Positives for me were Wallabies won, I personally thought Noah went pretty ok at 10, and showed his form from super seems to be his new standard, and I thought pack stood up well to Poms.
Swains act for getting Red carded was stupidity to highest degree9letting team down), and for the hair pulling, shit and I saw both him and the pom player seemingly do it in earlier maul, they has been at each other for whole game.
Positives for me were Wallabies won, I personally thought Noah went pretty ok at 10, and showed his form from super seems to be his new standard, and I thought pack stood up well to Poms.
Swains act for getting Red carded was stupidity to highest degree9letting team down), and for the hair pulling, shit and I saw both him and the pom player seemingly do it in earlier maul, they has been at each other for whole game.
Lightblue
Arch Winning (36)
He played well and kicked great but lets just see…
A fit Quade Cooper is still a far superior play maker than young Noah… but hats off to the young man who nailed the pressure goals and did well…
So great to beat those bloody Poms!!
Last edited:
dru
Tim Horan (67)
Not a lot of stand outs in the stats at ESPN.
www.espn.co.uk
Perhaps the number of passes from our halves (White 43, Gordon 10, Lolo 15) compared to England (Care 66, Portvliit 4, Smith 23)? Lolo's tackle count was almost up with the pack, definitely targeted. He also (not in the stats) took some awesome high ball. Otherwise every thing seems pretty equal. Koroibete and Kerevi contributions are obvious even though the stats don't pick up kicks in play (edit, not nominated to individuals at least). While it didn't feel like it at the time, our territory game sort of worked: territory at 52%/51% while possession was 45%/46%. It's a game plan that leaves me nervous but is working against England. Hold your breath for the ABs.
Both teams kicked 18 times so the same but with a win in territory. Not bad. Predictably with the kicking game our tackle count had to be higher (167 v 136), logic to me suggests maybe a different plan might be safer with 14 on the park but the boys fitness was up for it. And our line out had equity, haleluia may the lord be praised. Our scrum had equity, even missing Tupou. Actually, we should acknowledge the debutant Porecki. Along with a solid set piece, even missing the l/o caller, he also ran 20m and made 16 tackles - second only behind Neville. Our tackle success at 87% could improve but we matched England at 88%.
Pretty much parity for scrums, line outs, kicks in hand, tackle success, penalties, rucks won, turnovers. Not bad with 14.
Oh, they have Lolo goal kicking at 100%. We lose this game if he is not on the field.
Another edit: Slipper at tight head from min 26 and having to play the game out. Massive.
Australia vs England - Player Statistics - International Test Match 2022 - 1 Jul, 2022 - ESPN
Get a summary of the Australia vs England, International Test Match 2022 1 Jul, 2022 rugby match.
www.espn.co.uk
Perhaps the number of passes from our halves (White 43, Gordon 10, Lolo 15) compared to England (Care 66, Portvliit 4, Smith 23)? Lolo's tackle count was almost up with the pack, definitely targeted. He also (not in the stats) took some awesome high ball. Otherwise every thing seems pretty equal. Koroibete and Kerevi contributions are obvious even though the stats don't pick up kicks in play (edit, not nominated to individuals at least). While it didn't feel like it at the time, our territory game sort of worked: territory at 52%/51% while possession was 45%/46%. It's a game plan that leaves me nervous but is working against England. Hold your breath for the ABs.
Both teams kicked 18 times so the same but with a win in territory. Not bad. Predictably with the kicking game our tackle count had to be higher (167 v 136), logic to me suggests maybe a different plan might be safer with 14 on the park but the boys fitness was up for it. And our line out had equity, haleluia may the lord be praised. Our scrum had equity, even missing Tupou. Actually, we should acknowledge the debutant Porecki. Along with a solid set piece, even missing the l/o caller, he also ran 20m and made 16 tackles - second only behind Neville. Our tackle success at 87% could improve but we matched England at 88%.
Pretty much parity for scrums, line outs, kicks in hand, tackle success, penalties, rucks won, turnovers. Not bad with 14.
Oh, they have Lolo goal kicking at 100%. We lose this game if he is not on the field.
Another edit: Slipper at tight head from min 26 and having to play the game out. Massive.
Last edited:
PhilClinton
Geoff Shaw (53)
I watched the game with a large group, some rugby fans, some not. Pretty much everyone found the first half a drag, wasn’t a great advertisement for the game. There was a lot of commentary around why it it took so long to go back and review the hair pull and headbutt incident. Those guys has clearly not watched much Super Rugby this year, I was used to 6 reviews a game.
But everyone was glued and cheering with 20mins to go.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
I guess the influence of Quade also off the field with Noah in RA article claiming learning a lot from Quade. That is the broader value of old bull like Quade providing guidance as well to the next crop of young 10s like Noah
Wallabies playmakers Quade Cooper, Tom Banks suffer injuries
The Wallabies have suffered a major blow with flyhalf Quade Cooper ruled out of the first Test against England.
www.rugby.com.au
Rebel man
Peter Johnson (47)
Why we need to act is, to the letter of the law Hill should of been red carded for the double handed push to the face. As making contact with an open hand is deemed a striking.
The ref lets it go right in front of him.
You can’t just let the TMO pick and choose when they are going to get involved.
If you look at the spirit of the laws a red card was meant for only clear and obvious foul play.
Fans of the crack down say a red card is the deterrent to stop players acting in a certain way but you can achieve the same out come with financial sanctions and suspension.
While I don’t want red cards to be abolished I don’t think the TMO should be able to get involved. If the ref sees something that’s clear and obvious he should be solely in control of that process
The ref lets it go right in front of him.
You can’t just let the TMO pick and choose when they are going to get involved.
If you look at the spirit of the laws a red card was meant for only clear and obvious foul play.
Fans of the crack down say a red card is the deterrent to stop players acting in a certain way but you can achieve the same out come with financial sanctions and suspension.
While I don’t want red cards to be abolished I don’t think the TMO should be able to get involved. If the ref sees something that’s clear and obvious he should be solely in control of that process
Marce
John Thornett (49)
That's the English style, kicking/territory game. They score a lot of tries against Italy, Japan or Tonga but against top teams they play like that
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Guts and self-belief on our part. Poor coaching on theirs (chuckle). How sweet it is.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
No thanks. I played in the days when the referee was the sole judge of everything (linesmen were provided by each team). That is a recipe for mayhem on the ref's blindside.
But the match referee should be the final arbiter, after he has reviewed the video evidence and the opinions of the other officials.
Last edited:
tragic
John Solomon (38)
I do think they need to sort the cards. It’s a balance between deterring dangerous play and protecting the players vs ruining a game for a fairly benign event. None of the cards yesterday carried any real risk of significant injury. Mostly just niggle and a tackle that carried no risk of injury.
I don’t know the solution - if you allow interpretation you don’t get consistency but if you police the exact wording you get collateral damage from soft events that technically meet the framework for a card.
But it needs to be sorted before the World Cup or it’s going to influence the outcome and turn dwindling fans away from the game.
I don’t know the solution - if you allow interpretation you don’t get consistency but if you police the exact wording you get collateral damage from soft events that technically meet the framework for a card.
But it needs to be sorted before the World Cup or it’s going to influence the outcome and turn dwindling fans away from the game.
- Status