Pom Vs Wallabies

[Thomond78]

Havent read all of this, but its not a great England side so we shouldnt get too excited.

Agreed, but that was a reasonable Pommy tight five (similar to Marseilles 2007 with the exception of Shaw) and that is the overriding theme to this whole match: we took the one area they thought they'd dominate and used it against them.

In general play I thought their forwards were much better on attack than ours, but defensively we were superior.

The Pommy backline was definitely more cohesive than ours.

Boys, I'm sorry to be negative here; but Shhheerrrrriiiiidddannn isn't a good scrummager against a prop with technique. We've known that for a long, long time. Your technique has improved, and Nathan Sharpe has started to give his tighthead something to work with; but as big a change as that is, a bigger one is refs finally waking up to Sheridan's illegalities, which they also did the weekend before. We've been saying it here for ages, but the man-love for him in the English press has been too loud to be shouted down until now.

They've been coughing up ball against the head for a while - we got a clean strike on one back in the 6N. But it's taken this long for them to wake up to not being much cop as scrummagers, because you were bloody worse until now, so they could delude themselves!

Vickery, btw, has been hammered to shite by everyone taking him on for a good two years now. Time to quit, Phil.

BTW, aren't you glad that we don't have that sanctions ELV in the rest of the world and that hard-working forwards who pressurise the opposition into giving away penalties are justly rewarded for their efforts on the score-board...? O0

 

[fatprop]

Looking back on the game, I was also impressed with some of the offloads under pressure and the catching of Aus.

Tiny steps but their skills are improving.

 

[fatprop]

BTW, aren't you glad that we don't have that sanctions ELV in the rest of the world and that hard-working forwards who pressurise the opposition into giving away penalties are justly rewarded for their efforts on the score-board...? O0

No, it stopped us from gaining any rhythm in attack for most of the game. I would have preferred the free kick option, then being upgraded to penalties and then players being sent to the bin.

 

[Lindommer]

BTW, aren't you glad that we don't have that sanctions ELV in the rest of the world and that hard-working forwards who pressurise the opposition into giving away penalties are justly rewarded for their efforts on the score-board...? O0

And therein lies the major philosophical difference between the North and South in our approach to rugby. We would MUCH prefer short arm penalties which would've resulted in the Pommy forwards being run off their feet at game's end and a few more tries to Australia. Some of the penalties the Poms gave away were quite cynical; they were happy to concede 3 points rather than risk losing 7. To me, that's the ultimate cheats' charter. On Saturday, of all days, Australia would've been quite happy to take the scrum option and enjoy the exquisite pleasure of grinding the Pommy scrum into the ground.

 

[Spook]

Havent read all of this, but its not a great England side so we shouldnt get too excited.

Agreed, but that was a reasonable Pommy tight five (similar to Marseilles 2007 with the exception of Shaw) and that is the overriding theme to this whole match: we took the one area they thought they'd dominate and used it against them.

In general play I thought their forwards were much better on attack than ours, but defensively we were superior.

The Pommy backline was definitely more cohesive than ours.

Boys, I'm sorry to be negative here; but Shhheerrrrriiiiidddannn isn't a good scrummager against a prop with technique. We've known that for a long, long time. Your technique has improved, and Nathan Sharpe has started to give his tighthead something to work with; but as big a change as that is, a bigger one is refs finally waking up to Sheridan's illegalities, which they also did the weekend before. We've been saying it here for ages, but the man-love for him in the English press has been too loud to be shouted down until now.

They've been coughing up ball against the head for a while - we got a clean strike on one back in the 6N. But it's taken this long for them to wake up to not being much cop as scrummagers, because you were bloody worse until now, so they could delude themselves!

Vickery, btw, has been hammered to shite by everyone taking him on for a good two years now. Time to quit, Phil.

BTW, aren't you glad that we don't have that sanctions ELV in the rest of the world and that hard-working forwards who pressurise the opposition into giving away penalties are justly rewarded for their efforts on the score-board...? O0

Noone has damanged a front row of Vickery and Sheridan like that - certainly not Hayes and company. Ireland were under the pump in the tight 5 in Twickenham in the 6Ns and they lost 33 -10. End of story. Australia is not the complete package by any means but that effort on the weekened in the tight 5 was very good. England destroyed France up front in the 6Ns so hopefully Australia can hold their own in Paris. The French are unpredictable so who knows..

 

[rugbywhisperer]

Sooo. is our scrum better?
Good question - better than what?
yes it has improved and we did finally get some payback for the trickery being perpetrated on our front row for so long.
Maybe the refs now understand what has been happening - it wasn't our fault as much as people have thougt.
So is it better?
It has improved, a long way to go but with a bit of newfound confidence our lads can build and get back to the salad days of past.

Also, and this must be remembered - this story shall a good man teach his son.
Never again let us rest on the success of a team in forgetting and ingoring the deficiencies of a sector of the game.
We were in a state of euphoria for so long in winning in the McQueen days that subsequent coaches accepted winning as the ultimate result instead of being the result of a process and to our peril and shame we neglected the front row and all the skills and nuances that go with it.
Winning, while being the objective and worthy of laying down a life or two, must be achieved by due process and winning without knowing why or how is a good and sure path to oblivion.

 

[Moses]

Video of all the scrums and lineouts from the match here: http://beerandsport.net/the-set-piece-from-twickenham/

 

[Lee Grant]

BTW, aren't you glad that we don't have that sanctions ELV in the rest of the world and that hard-working forwards who pressurise the opposition into giving away penalties are justly rewarded for their efforts on the score-board...? O0

It was actually sweet to win like that T78 after being Jonnied so often by the Poms.

But if we played under the free kick regime of the Super14 and 3N we would have won by more as we have had a lot more experience playing under them. The Poms would have been blowing hard by oranges.

They have some good English players in the GP and elsewhere who would be great playing under a wider spectrum of ELVs, but they weren't in the team we played on Saturday night. Though one Pom player who would have starred is Danny Care.

Mind you in this parallel universe replay of the game under SANZAR ELVs Matt Stevens would have started, Nick Kennedy would not have been dropped from the 22, yarda, yarda.

One thing that came clear to me watching the S14 this year was that no frills rugby with hard forward play was just as valid as it was under standard law - ask any Waratahs fan. And contrariwise, teams that played yahoo rugby paying lip service to structure performed worse.


whisperer

Went to church on Sunday did we? It's well that we should have - a few prayers were answered.

 

[Spook]

Video of all the scrums and lineouts from the match here: http://beerandsport.net/the-set-piece-from-twickenham/

He missed the best one in the game :nta:

 

[Biffo]

To add my two bob's worth the the Whisperer's excellent opinion, there is a great difference between the poms and Australians about winning and playing well. The poms believe playing well is a consequence of playing well. We believe that winning is a consequence of playing well.

 

[Scotty]

The absence of Barnes and the balance he gave to us at 12 in the Sydney Bledisloe has brought us back to the field. We have no other player of his type to play 12 in the country, but the good news is that we cobbled together a victory without him.

Isn't it funny how last year Connolly was castigated by many a NSW supporter for picking Barnes for the RWC squad, even though it was clear at the time Barnes had better credentials than the likes of Beale.

Barnes then lead us to victory against the Welsh and has since become the best inside centre and probably the best controller of a game in this country.

Not sure I've seen anyone admit that Connolly got this particular decision right.

 

[Pfitzy]

Boys, I'm sorry to be negative here; but Shhheerrrrriiiiidddannn isn't a good scrummager against a prop with technique. We've known that for a long, long time. Your technique has improved, and Nathan Sharpe has started to give his tighthead something to work with; but as big a change as that is, a bigger one is refs finally waking up to Sheridan's illegalities, which they also did the weekend before. We've been saying it here for ages, but the man-love for him in the English press has been too loud to be shouted down until now.

1) Zactly - its only when a lowly Aussie prop hands Sheridan his arse that anything will change. We're glad to have performed this service to World Rugby

2) Sharpe packs at loosehead most of the time and I think he did on Saturday :nta:

3) We're not exactly crowing that we've the best pack in the world now. But we are happy, nay - jubilant - that our oft-maligned pack, and Al Baxter in particular, have finally given people the middle finger and a shit-eating grin over the myth that our scrum is poo.

So let us enjoy the moment Oirish. Its a shame we didn't have the full ELVs so we could win by a few more points. Taking the tap off the back of that 5m scrum that Sheridan was penalised at was a given 5 points, because all the Poms were too busy waving their arms in the air, incredulous that one of their props could have conceded a penalty against one of our props. The ELVs are designed exactly to punish sides by greater measure than 3 points a pop by allowing the other team to take the initiative. If the game had been played under the correct laws, we would have seen at least one England forward in the bin for continued infringement at the ruck, and another for dangerous play at the scrum, the way things were going.

 

[Pfitzy]

Not sure I've seen anyone admit that Connolly got this particular decision right.

It was overshadowed by the staggering amount of decisions he got wrong.

 

[Thomond78]

Nick, the binnings could, and probably should, have happened anyway; I don't think anyone could claim that the sanctions ELV has led to more binnings at the top level, rather the contrary. The design isn't working at the top level, as the infringement isn't being punished on the score-board. Unless you think Richie McCaw is now legal...? :fishing

And there was nothing to stop you taking the tap off the penalty anyway. You'd still have had the kick, so it would have made more sense to tap and go off a penalty (albeit I've noticed SA refs are poor at enforcing this).

I would say that I'm not begrudging your moment, and am actually quite thankful that the rest of the world now understands that this bit about English packs being monsters is outdated crap. What actually won the Irish match for them last year was their centres giving them a target, not their set-pieces. Their lineout coughs up ball, and their scrum got milled for the last two years by the Welsh, is 3-0 down on strikes against the head against us over the last two years and frankly, isn't good anymore. Vickery really should call it a day.

Would say I've always thought Jonker a good ref on scrums, btw.

 

[Pfitzy]

Agreed - I don't think Vickery has ever actually been as good as his reputation insists. When he was out here for the Lions 2001 as a younger man he was highly rated but I saw nothing that was too impressive. Especially when Nic Stiles bent him over backwards in Melbourne and we scored off the loose ball.

 

[Lee Grant]

Isn't it funny how last year Connolly was castigated by many a NSW supporter for picking Barnes for the RWC squad, even though it was clear at the time Barnes had better credentials than the likes of Beale.

Barnes then lead us to victory against the Welsh and has since become the best inside centre and probably the best controller of a game in this country.

Not sure I've seen anyone admit that Connolly got this particular decision right.

Connolly certainly wasn't castigated by this Waratah supporter and I picked Barnes to be in the squad as the backup to Bernie if he was injured - and ahead of Giteau who should stay in his best position at 12. I didn't think, and still don't, that 10 is the best position for Gits.

I can't remember too many people going for Beale. Barnes certainly had better credentials though that year he was a bit tentative behind a pack that had suffered a lot of injuries - and thus he played a bit too deep. I reckoned he would be better behind and Oz pack and so it proved, especially in Cardiff.

I remember saying that Beale shouldn't be considered, nor Cooper, and that they should have gone to the U/19 championship, and later play club rugby and for Oz A as a continuation of their apprenticeship - but they weren't allowed to to play U/19s and were put on standby for Oz IIRR.

I didn't say Connolly was right because I picked Barnes before he did.

 

[Gagger]

Its a shame we didn't have the full ELVs so we could win by a few more points. Taking the tap off the back of that 5m scrum that Sheridan was penalised at was a given 5 points, because all the Poms were too busy waving their arms in the air, incredulous that one of their props could have conceded a penalty against one of our props. The ELVs are designed exactly to punish sides by greater measure than 3 points a pop by allowing the other team to take the initiative. If the game had been played under the correct laws, we would have seen at least one England forward in the bin for continued infringement at the ruck, and another for dangerous play at the scrum, the way things were going.

Well said NTA.

In re-watching the game last night with the question in my noggin "why didn't we threaten the line more?" the point you make was rammed home. Every time we hit their half with ball in hand and momentum they brought the whole game to a halt and a restart with the full arm. Thank god gits has had his kicking boots on this season, but how much better would it have been to see the backline running off a dominant scrum.

Quote from Thomond

And there was nothing to stop you taking the tap off the penalty anyway. You'd still have had the kick, so it would have made more sense to tap and go off a penalty

Not when the other team is able to pot shots at goal under the full arm law. Tips the balance in their favour too much. Which is why all the top coaches spotted we need the sanctions law back in 2003....(and here we go again....) :

 

[Scotty]

Fair enough Lee, I wasn't aiming that at you, just using your quote. I think it ironic that some of the same people that doubted Barnes previously now rate him higher than Giteau as a 10, or one of the most important players in our backline at 12.

 

[Scotty]

BTW, aren't you glad that we don't have that sanctions ELV in the rest of the world and that hard-working forwards who pressurise the opposition into giving away penalties are justly rewarded for their efforts on the score-board...?

I think you are in the denial stage of your 'old rugby laws grieving process', Thommo.

 

[Turban]

BTW, aren't you glad that we don't have that sanctions ELV in the rest of the world and that hard-working forwards who pressurise the opposition into giving away penalties are justly rewarded for their efforts on the score-board...? O0

And therein lies the major philosophical difference between the North and South in our approach to rugby. We would MUCH prefer short arm penalties which would've resulted in the Pommy forwards being run off their feet at game's end and a few more tries to Australia. Some of the penalties the Poms gave away were quite cynical; they were happy to concede 3 points rather than risk losing 7. To me, that's the ultimate cheats' charter. On Saturday, of all days, Australia would've been quite happy to take the scrum option and enjoy the exquisite pleasure of grinding the Pommy scrum into the ground.

The thing with free-kicks is that while they might not be giving away 3 points, they increase the pressure on the offending team. Players who give away 3 points instead of 7, also get to hammer the kick-off back deep into opposition territory afterwards to relieve pressure and get on the attack. Free-kicks keep the pressure on and keep the offending team making lots of tackles.

And back on the topic of scrums, on one occation when we were penalised it looked to this flanker that the English scrum had stepped backwards on the hit and pulled us down with them. Not sure how the ref saw it but he awarded their dangerous tactic with a penalty :nta: