Australia v England
We lost and so there are lots of points to be negative about, and we know Australia can or will be better, however I like to show a little optimism at times.
England had Australia under a lot of pressure early on, although Australia had a lot of possession. If England had taken the chances on offer then it is possible that the pressure would have been too much. England need to sharpen up their work with the ball in hand, take less contact by offloading more and taking territory when there is nothing on in your own half. England need to keep mixing things; chip over, long kicks for territory, offloads and wide passes, to really test Australia, there was too much one dimensional bashing to test Australia. In defence we looked good for most of the game, it was only as Catt tired and the sluggish Goode and Worsley came on that gaps appeared in the middle. Until then Australia could not run round us or through us and were not able to create the spaces inside. If we can maintain the performance and not let it slip on the hour mark, and make sure we have points on the board, then there is a chance England can turn this around.
I think England had two main problems, the first is that they took contact too often. I was expecting England to offload far more, I can't believe it was Ashton's game plan to bully a bigger pack at the breakdown. Secondly, Peter Richards has got to go. I can sense raised eyebrows as I type. He personally had a great game challenging Australia, but that is not what we need from our nine, the reason Barkley and the whole backline looked sluggish is because Richards is not a link man. Richards is a one man attack machine, but more than that is required here. If Walshe was in the backline would have more time and space to do it's magic. How often was Richards AWOL, because he had taken the ball on, and if he was there the ball was too slow. The back three came in for some criticism but I think they were poorly served when their strength is attack, but even in their weakest area, defence, the conceded nothing on the outside against the best backline in the world. Catt struggled as the game went on, as predicted, leaving holes in the middle that became worse when Goode was on. Goode to his credit had a decent attack, but that may have been the extra time and space created by Walshe.
In the second row I am not sure about Jones for coming on for Brown, I think Deacon did less than Brown, Brown looked better as the game went on. However, a double swap Jones and Kay, could be acceptable but I would just drop Deacon. I still think Jones is England's best second row, so I would always look to start him there. For this tour I think he should be in the second row as that is our weak spot, for the future I would only put him in the backrow if it means getting our best players on the pitch, which given the options I see in the back row is unlikely. With Lund an injury doubt then I would accept Jones at eight and Kay in to the second row ahead of Deacon, but if Lund is fit Jones should start in the second row. I will keep Worsley on the bench, but if you want biffer Worsley take Moody off not Lund. Nice work by the old boys up front for the first sixty minutes.
I still think Tait is our best future bet at centre and would not sacrifice his learning curve for short term fixes like Noon at centre and Tait to the wing, especially as I think Varndell will also benefit from another outing. Varndell should be persisted with because you can coach the things he's bad at but can't coach the things he's good at, such as his stepping around Tuquiri.. The real problem is that England played on the backfoot and we know that is not Varndell's strength and yet against the best backline in the world how many tries were scored on the outside? None. Yes he has frailties but he is learning and I think he could be great but we need some quick answers and quick learning from him. For the next game Van Gisbergen is not the answer, he offers little in defence above Varndell, and Varndell was not England's problem. I don't think Varndell would have improved by going to the US, he would still lack confidence the first time he faced a top team. This way I hope he will look at the tape see the step on Tuquiri, and the options he missed, then next week vrooooommm.
There was no major catastrophe at fullback, so it still falls in to the “potential” category. Balshaw has the potential to be our best fullback, so we need to persist on this tour. As our only real alternative here, excluding Voyce who is better on the wing, is Van Gisbergen and I would see little benefit of trying him above Balshaw. We know that Lewsey is on hand for later matches but we need an option to cover his loss of form or injury. If things work out with Balshaw we will be in a very strong position, at worst I think he will remain in contention for a wing spot.
So finally my changes are slight:
Jones in for Deacon, Kay on the bench.
Walshe in and Bemand to the bench.
Abbott on the bench for Noon, to be used at 40-50 minutes.
England had Australia under a lot of pressure early on, although Australia had a lot of possession. If England had taken the chances on offer then it is possible that the pressure would have been too much. England need to sharpen up their work with the ball in hand, take less contact by offloading more and taking territory when there is nothing on in your own half. England need to keep mixing things; chip over, long kicks for territory, offloads and wide passes, to really test Australia, there was too much one dimensional bashing to test Australia. In defence we looked good for most of the game, it was only as Catt tired and the sluggish Goode and Worsley came on that gaps appeared in the middle. Until then Australia could not run round us or through us and were not able to create the spaces inside. If we can maintain the performance and not let it slip on the hour mark, and make sure we have points on the board, then there is a chance England can turn this around.
I think England had two main problems, the first is that they took contact too often. I was expecting England to offload far more, I can't believe it was Ashton's game plan to bully a bigger pack at the breakdown. Secondly, Peter Richards has got to go. I can sense raised eyebrows as I type. He personally had a great game challenging Australia, but that is not what we need from our nine, the reason Barkley and the whole backline looked sluggish is because Richards is not a link man. Richards is a one man attack machine, but more than that is required here. If Walshe was in the backline would have more time and space to do it's magic. How often was Richards AWOL, because he had taken the ball on, and if he was there the ball was too slow. The back three came in for some criticism but I think they were poorly served when their strength is attack, but even in their weakest area, defence, the conceded nothing on the outside against the best backline in the world. Catt struggled as the game went on, as predicted, leaving holes in the middle that became worse when Goode was on. Goode to his credit had a decent attack, but that may have been the extra time and space created by Walshe.
In the second row I am not sure about Jones for coming on for Brown, I think Deacon did less than Brown, Brown looked better as the game went on. However, a double swap Jones and Kay, could be acceptable but I would just drop Deacon. I still think Jones is England's best second row, so I would always look to start him there. For this tour I think he should be in the second row as that is our weak spot, for the future I would only put him in the backrow if it means getting our best players on the pitch, which given the options I see in the back row is unlikely. With Lund an injury doubt then I would accept Jones at eight and Kay in to the second row ahead of Deacon, but if Lund is fit Jones should start in the second row. I will keep Worsley on the bench, but if you want biffer Worsley take Moody off not Lund. Nice work by the old boys up front for the first sixty minutes.
I still think Tait is our best future bet at centre and would not sacrifice his learning curve for short term fixes like Noon at centre and Tait to the wing, especially as I think Varndell will also benefit from another outing. Varndell should be persisted with because you can coach the things he's bad at but can't coach the things he's good at, such as his stepping around Tuquiri.. The real problem is that England played on the backfoot and we know that is not Varndell's strength and yet against the best backline in the world how many tries were scored on the outside? None. Yes he has frailties but he is learning and I think he could be great but we need some quick answers and quick learning from him. For the next game Van Gisbergen is not the answer, he offers little in defence above Varndell, and Varndell was not England's problem. I don't think Varndell would have improved by going to the US, he would still lack confidence the first time he faced a top team. This way I hope he will look at the tape see the step on Tuquiri, and the options he missed, then next week vrooooommm.
There was no major catastrophe at fullback, so it still falls in to the “potential” category. Balshaw has the potential to be our best fullback, so we need to persist on this tour. As our only real alternative here, excluding Voyce who is better on the wing, is Van Gisbergen and I would see little benefit of trying him above Balshaw. We know that Lewsey is on hand for later matches but we need an option to cover his loss of form or injury. If things work out with Balshaw we will be in a very strong position, at worst I think he will remain in contention for a wing spot.
So finally my changes are slight:
Jones in for Deacon, Kay on the bench.
Walshe in and Bemand to the bench.
Abbott on the bench for Noon, to be used at 40-50 minutes.
posted by AJ Thomas at
1:51 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home