Sorry, this story is unavailable
to be fair mate i actually mis-read the beginning of your post where you mentioned the anybody who doesnt think that England have a shout at RWC is barking up the wrong tree. I thought you were one of many who were having a pop at England. It has caught me out as well with England throwing the ball around and i agree that if the Wallabies had finished the opportunity under our sticks it would have been a different game. I actually thought that we were going to get pinged for a breakdown infringement but it was great to see competition at the breakdowns at last. Cheers.
Posted 10:05 07th December 2010
Cass402 I take your points... Although my view of the Aus v Eng game is different. The Wallabies missed their first three shots at goal, which would have given them a nice lead. You say that England didn't allow the Aussies on the front foot, but the one moment in that game that stands out was when Australia were on the "front foot" attacking the English line and Ashton scored a 90 metre turn over try. That was a 12-14 point turn around in my view. If Australia had kept their composure the result would have been much different.
It was probably the weakest defensive game from the wallabies team this year. (lets face it Eng, even at their best, dont possess the attacking dangers of a team like the all blacks)
Much like that turnover try, the wallabies were constantly caught napping because they weren't expecting the English to spread it wide. And who can blame them. That is the most I've ever seen the English pass the ball.
Not saying that England didn't deserve the win, but the Wallabies played poorly. They often do against England for some reason.
Posted 02:16 03rd December 2010
i believe it was 2002/3 when England won in NZ so no need to trawl the record books for that. I dont think that many England fans go by what is written in the press mate...we do actually watch some games and make up our own minds. For example during the last november tests England were soundly beaten by all 3 SH big guns but this november series there have been huge strides made. The argument that the Wallabies had an off day doesnt hold water...they were just not allowed to play on the front foot, same as what SA did to England 2 weeks later. I must be different to a lot of rugby watchers in that if i see a great game, win lose or draw for my side, i still enjoy it. I've enjoyed watching England, NZ and Australia in recent months and the game breakers within these sides such as Kaino,SBW,DC,Pocock,Genia,O'conner,Ashton,Youngs and Lawes.
I never go down the route of predicting a RWC outcome because there are always so many games which throw the logical choices on their heads...eg England in 2007, if it was suprising for SH viewers then it was down right baffling for England fans..as was the NZ exit.
Posted 11:45 02nd December 2010
In my opinion anyone who doesn't think that England have a chance at the World Cup doesn't really know there rugby. Like many on this post have pointed out, they seem to lift in world cup years, and managed to sneak through to the final in 2007 with an average side. There side is better than it was in 2007, but so are other top contenders.
The trick for England is to remain humble. They have to realise that, despite what the English press will tell the fans, they are still off the pace of the top three.
To be a top 3 side, you should be able to win your home games against any side, or at least expect to win, particularly those that travel half way around to world to play in alien conditions.
Teams grow an extra leg in their own backyard, and likewise the Red Rose play their best rugby at Twickenham. But they were comfortably beaten by the All Blacks and the Boks. Yes they rose to the occasion against the wallabies, but to be fair the wallabies had a shocker. In the last 3 years, England has only won 1 game at Twickenham against the top 3. And their record is much worse on the road. So they shouldn¿t get ahead of themselves. You¿d have to search the record books to ascertain when they last won in New Zealand (?).
The best I could predict for England is the finals. They should top their group, they could potentially beat France, and they might be able to upset the wallabies in the semis, as they have done in the past, but I cant see them getting past SA or Boks in the final. In reality, I think they will fall in the Semis, perhaps the quarters if the French get their team right.
Posted 01:26 02nd December 2010
Had to read this twice to believe somebody actually wrote this garbage. Can the English media simply not contain themselves when any one of their teams shows even a glimmer of form? Christ, I hope 'lukewarm' Ireland send you home from dublin with your tails between your legs in the 6N.
Posted 21:16 01st December 2010
@wazsere - nobody is developing an English 10 except Leicester and Northampton, it's that simple. Leicester have Flood, Twelvetrees who has been a more than able replacement for Flood over the last couple of months and Ford who looks like a very promising youngster. Northampton have the other Ford lad. The other English 10s are all too old or have been tried and found lacking - Shane Geraghty for example. Ryan Lamb is the only other player in that position to show any kind of consistency for his club and at international level I think he'd get destroyed, bearing in mind that Irish hide him during set pieces. Other than those, there are barely a handful of English players in this position.
Posted 10:19 01st December 2010
england you are your own worst enemy. Your starting to build up this team like you have done others(not just in this sport mind) and the pressure will tell in the end. this team will win 3 in the 6N at bets. there are 5 reasons why you wont do well and they were in the starting line-up against SA
lets start at 2: Dylan Hartley. Over rated massively... tries hard and shows aggression but with little to back it up. He is a weak ball carrier and not the best thrower either.
5: tom palmer- not exactly world class to dissect opposition line out. Enough said on that one.
10: Toby Flood: Good Player but far from great and can be got at. will not boss a game and cant be as metronomic as wilkinson
12: Shontayne Hape: havnt seen him do anything yet. dan hipkiss still a better option for me if you can get the right runners off him
13: mike tindall- too old, too slow, too tired and thats it
However all that being said. come the next world cup...massive scrum loads of penalties, kick for position, play for territory and your in the world cup final and i do think you will get there. And to be fair, if your in group B with Argentina, Scotland, Georgia and Romania, you had better be able to scrummage.
Posted 21:09 30th November 2010
England tho seem to be the opposite of NZ, they always up there game for the WC. I dont think many would have predicted they would make the finals in 2007...
Posted 19:58 30th November 2010
England played good against a poor, tired, under performing AUS, NZ and depleted SA squads, you were destroyed by SA. lost to a very bad NZ, and just about beat an Awful Australia who also lost to a 3rd string Munster.....
My advice for Johnson would be to stick with the current squad and develop from there, don't make the same mistake as Lièvremont... chopping and changing gets a team nowhere!!
Posted 15:31 30th November 2010
Could use the same logic as to why Eng lost to SA
Posted 14:04 30th November 2010
Australia were clearly off the Mark when they lost to England.
Posted 11:59 30th November 2010
Seriously you have to be extremely uneducated in the Sport of Rugby to suggest had Flood not been injured they may have beaten the Sprinkboks, do yourself a favour and go watch that game again. The score in fact absolutely flattered England. England were completely dominated and outplayed in all facets even by the unsettled and not full-strength Bok backs..
In fact, even with Toby Flood if anything had changed in that game it would have been more likely that Victor Matfield scored a try and CJ did not give away another probable Bok try and the scoreline would have been more realistic at 33-6.
Posted 11:58 30th November 2010
Of course this article get's carried away, and like Olepete says, to state that we would have beaten the Springboks had Flood been on is ludicrous, infact Hodgson probably played better than him, THAT DAY. Now everyones slating Johnson at interview time, but against South Africa his points weren't all that bad mostly. When asked were the errors due to the physical dominance from South Africa, or unforced from England, he said 'A mix to be honest' which is true. Yes, South Africa dominated out pack THAT DAY (which is something nobody seems to consider) and that caused alot of errors, but many were just unforced and were silly.
But overall for Autumn? Things to work on, yes. Johnson needs to try and build more of a squad in perhaps in Italy and Wales games at 6N? Bring in Thompson, Banahan some gametime at 13, David Wilson deserves another shot at 3, and I'd even give Ojo a game on the wing. But whatever Johnson decides, he needs to make more depth in the squad. But what nobody seems to notice, is that no1 is getting carried away with England, start waking up and realising the fans know they are not a GREAT team yet. But it's improved, that's true. We can at least compete, and even beat on our day southern hemisphere teams, could you say that last year? To beat Ireland seemed out of the question last year...
Posted 10:27 30th November 2010
Triants - My god man, are you so insecure you have to trawl every blog attempting to correct, imagined, slights against the Wallabies?? You really ought to get out more champ.
I thought the English had a fairly decent autumn, showed they are developing more than 1 style of play and have mixed in youth nicely, not something you can normally say about the Red Rose. They lack a competitive midfield and the bench is not the best stocked but I still think they will do well at the WC.
It would be a brave bet to go against them if it was a semi with the Wallabies
Posted 10:09 30th November 2010
Yes, there's the makings of a team here, but to imply that they could have beaten SA had Flood not been injured is pure fantasy. Get real lads.
Posted 09:10 30th November 2010
The problem I have with this 'new look' England is the lack of creativity and innovation to implement plan A, B or C (if we have a plan B or C) to adopt to the differnet styles required to test and break down respective teams and win. Everything was rosy going forward against Aus, but we couldn't function (and reverted to type - aimless kicking etc) when under pressure from SA. We lack depth in each position and the creativity to change the game plan if its not working.
Posted 08:48 30th November 2010
A dynamic pack?
Surely the English pack was smashed by a Bok pack afraid to trust its backs?
Did this dynamic pack compete with the Abs loose trio?
Hollow reporting at best
The English backs were a revelation at times but the pack dynamic?
Posted 08:31 30th November 2010
Don't forget the other Australian test in June.
Posted 08:12 30th November 2010