England to whitewash Australia

pakman

Congrats to England for refusing to yield. But some of the dullest play by Oz in a while. Two kickable penalties and 13 all and then England would have had to play instead of rope a dope.
 
Amazing that England didn't cop YC -- I think they thought they were getting one at least three times!
 
Hope third is as hard fought.

kiwiinmelb

I thought Australia would be too good at home before the series, 
 
But over the last 10 years, Ive always considered England to be something of a bogey side for the Aussies , and tended to forget all that due to what went on at the WC. 
 
So really in hindsight , its not that surprising to me , its more a case of business as usual.

Catogrande

Nah, don't see that Kiwinmelb. England rarely beat Aus in Aus. We have handed them their collective arses a few times over the years but also vice-versa. I do feel that our traditional strengths sometimes are too much for Aussie's traditional weaknesses and again the other way round, whereas our trad strengths are very rarely a NZ weakness. Yeah we take the odd game but never in a 'your my bitch today' type of way.

jegga

Well done to the poms, loving the three test series and playing full strength teams.
The thread title is looking more like it might come to pass. Its fair to say some of the earlier comments about Cheika might be pretty accurate too.

infidel

I'm not sure about putting the boot into cheika here, look at the team list they are basically a bunch of nevilles when you compare this mob to the great Aussie teams with eales, horan, little etc etc. 
Agree with an earlier poster about phipps I don't think he gives much variation in attack.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="infidel" data-cid="589593" data-time="1466282445">
<div>
I'm not sure about putting the boot into cheika here, look at the team list they are basically a bunch of nevilles when you compare this mob to the great Aussie teams with eales, horan, little etc etc. 
Agree with an earlier poster about phipps I don't think he gives much variation in attack.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I'm not putting the boot into Cheika, have a look at page 4 and 5 of this thread and the aussie vs kiwi impressions of him. He might have been a great club/superrugby coach but he's not a great international coach.
Eales Horan etc was 15 years ago, I'm not sure I see your point there.

NTA

So drunk when that went down and I'm glad I didn't see it. Well played Poms. Can't be a bunch of mugs if you can defend 75% possession.

Nepia

I think my talking up of Foley last week was a bit premature ....

Virgil

According to these ratings i cant see why Oz didnt win by 30 points..
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2016/06/18/australia-vs-england-second-test-player-ratings/michael-hooper/'>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2016/06/18/australia-vs-england-second-test-player-ratings/michael-hooper/</a>

hurricane

I think that although England won there was an element of luck involved. England tried to sit on a slim lead early in the second half. They started doing tactical grubber kicks to pin Australia deep in their half. You can't sit on a lead that slim and sure enough 5 minutes later Australia were hot on attack only mere metres out from the try line. Congratulations on the win England but next time when you have the ball in hand in a good attacking position then try to run it and score a try as you can't back your defence to hold the other team scoreless every week. Still as was explained to me on my other message board, this was England's first series victory ever in Australia and the magnitude of the occassion was huge. So I can see that point.

Rancid Schnitzel

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="589615" data-time="1466292579">
I think my talking up of Foley last week was a bit premature ....</blockquote>
 
Me too. I called him worldclass last week. He was dire yesterday. 
In fact pretty much every back had a serious case of white line fever.

hurricane

There was an excellent article someone posted last week about Australia using a 1-3-3-1 formation for their forwards, The commentators picked up on this and said it was part of the problem last night. The formation calls for both flankers to be out on the wing and as such they were fairly silent, according to the comms Hoopah gave up on 1-3-3-1 and just started chasing the ball and Australia improved for a time.

mariner4life

You drop that much ball when you repeatedly have backs running at a set defense because the forwards have failed to punch through. Or when you do generate momentum your halfback throws it behind his intended receiver. 
It seems to me the keys to beating Australia haven't changed in 15 years through a number of coaches

KiwiMurph

One of the real issues of Chieka is the lack of variety in their play - he hasn't been known for having great plan Bs. Their kicking game is woeful and it looks like they are sorely missing Beale in attack - the Foley Folau Beale combo makes it all go. 
As has been mentioned they don't have great player options at the moment but it might help if they got their backrow balance right - McMahon a 100kg 7 playing 8 and a wide running non traditional flanker playing 7.

hurricane

A lot of people were saying they were interested in how McMahon would fare. 2 knock ons, 1 penalty, line out win, some good carries. He was not an key asset. McCalman didn't fare much better but didn't make any mistakes. Don't know who Australia go with for the third test in the 8 jersey.

hurricane

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="KiwiMurph" data-cid="589641" data-time="1466299532">One of the real issues of Chieka is the lack of variety in their play - he hasn't been known for having great plan Bs. Their kicking game is woeful and it looks like they are sorely missing Beale in attack - the Foley Folau Beale combo makes it all go. As has been mentioned they don't have great player options at the moment but it might help if they got their backrow balance right - McMahon a 100kg 7 playing 8 and a wide running non traditional flanker playing 7.</blockquote> This will be a bit of an out there idea, but no worse than McMahon playing number 8, how about Hoopah at 8? He would be fast and can tackle whoever needs tackling.

KiwiMurph

At least that plan would allow McMahon to play 7 which would be better than visca versca but moving forward they need to get Holloway at 8 once he's back fit, get Pocock/McMahon at 7 then have McMahon/Hooper off the bench.

nostrildamus

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hurricane" data-cid="589646" data-time="1466300129">
<div>
This will be a bit of an out there idea, but no worse than McMahon playing number 8, how about Hoopah at 8? He would be fast and can tackle whoever needs tackling.
</div>
</blockquote>
Physically he might take a pounding and can't see Hoopah adding much at scrumtime and it is hard to throw sand in your opposite's face from 8.

KiwiMurph

In the short term test 3 i'd be giving Leroy Houston a crack at 8. Nothing to lose - at least he's proper 8 and used to playing v English players/style.

rotated

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="589595" data-time="1466283045">
I'm not putting the boot into Cheika, have a look at page 4 and 5 of this thread and the aussie vs kiwi impressions of him. He might have been a great club/superrugby coach but he's not a great international coach. 
Eales Horan etc was 15 years ago, I'm not sure I see your point there.</blockquote>
 
You don't see it though. The way this team is losing - the culture is different. In the sheds they look up to Cheika. He made it in the fashion industry so it's just a matter of time until the Bledisloe is home.

The Silver Fern

England to whitewash Australia