I actually stayed up to watch that dross for the first time since about 2010. So here my thoughts after considering the farce in order of importance:-
1) Officials - The performance of Clancy et al (lets not leave the TMO out) was worse than an amateur level. That they get paid for that is the true disgrace. I can accept that professionals will miss a couple of marginal passes or a knock on the the heat of a fast paced game. This ws not a fast paced game to start with but the sheer number of basic infringments that got missed is astounding, and most seemed to favour the English, perhaps on weight of possession, making it worse was the fact that Clancy actually called "play on" after some of them. I don't really have to since everyone else has made the comments about the two English tries, but this point would not be complete without pointing out that both were scored directly from pure refereeing blunders. The scrum rulings worked on pure pre-conceived ideas.
This was as abject a display from a referee (and Co) that I can recall, it would be fair if they never controlled a professional game again
2) Breakdown - The Wallabies continue to avoid it. It is no accident that for Wallaby try the arriving players hit the breakdown and drove PAST it. The Wallabies barely committed a player to the rest in the game and it showed with 1 turnover to them and perennially slow ball and England players being able to disguise their handling of the ball on the ground.
3) Selections -
a) Hooper - the only reason I can see for the continued selection of Hooper is because the Wallabies are no contesting the breakdown. He is being selected IMO for everything else away from the breakdown because it is just not a priority. That would be fine if somebody else filled that role. Perhaps if Robinson (and I remain unconvinced of his fitness) and Fainga'a (but Moore is the top forward performer for mine) were selected to start this could be carried. The hard fact is that nobody is doing shit at the breakdown.
b) Alexander - surely he has reached his Al Baxter moment. As poorly as the scrums were officiated, in terms of everything else that went on Alexander bound to the arm of Vunipola at every scrum that we saw on his side and he could of been penalised for it legitimately. If he is the best THP in Australia I'll eat my hat. I wouldn't rate him in the top 4, with Kepu, Ryan, Palmer (when fit) Slipper and probably some others far in front of him. That two of those are in the squad really is an indictment on selections IMO.
c) Timani - when Link selected him after the years of Robbie love and others here stating how effective and important the work he does is, I thought I should hold off and suck it up. Well is every game under Link I have really looked for positives in his play and sorry to say I just don't see it. Extremely poor at lineout, so poor he is a fundamental liability in a core aspect of his duties as a second rower. If he was basically effective as Brad Thorn was, but still didn't jump it could be accepted. Timani doesn't jump and doesn't even catch balls thrown directly to him at head height. As with front rowers, IMO if he doesn't fill the meat and potatoes duties for his position WTF is he selected. (Just to piss me off when he failed abysmally to take the lineout thrown directly to him he turned and jogged so slowly back towards the Australian goal line that I could have walked quicker.) Oh that's right because he is allegedly this super large person that clears out the ruck and smashes in defence and is the got to man for forward momentum. How does that equate with the actual realities of him being tackled on or behind the advantage line for little or no metres gained, the premise of avoiding of the breakdown I mentioned above and the fundamental lack of workrate we see (as evidenced by the slow jog in the first F%%$ half).
d) Genia - box kicks, what can be said really? I vary from head in hands to shouting WTF. A pity Stirzacker isn't on the tour, if a dropping to the bench fires him up for a game maybe dropping him from the match day 23 for a couple of games would get some consistency. Passing slow and laboured. The plaudits of him being the worlds best 9 just ignores the fundamentals.
For all the hope the accurate well execute play against NZ stirred, regardless of the result, this game was just dire. Yes the refereeing performance was very substandard, and yes it did materially effect the outcome, but just as I judged the loss to NZ as a very good result for Australian Rugby because of the manner it was achieved and the skills displayed, this really has to be judged as the abject failure that it was. Yes without the referee gifting England 14 points the Wallabies would have won, but that shouldn't be used to cover what was a poor, listless and largely skill-less performance by the Wallabies.