大象传媒

bbc.co.uk Navigation

Mark Orlovac

England throw down gauntlet (123)

Paris - England coach Brian Ashton sprung a few surprises when he announced his team for in Marseille.

And the message he has sent out to the Wallabies is a simple one 鈥 we want to bully you at scrum time.

In recalling skipper and tight-head prop Phil Vickery and hooker Mark Regan for England's biggest game since the 2003 World Cup final, Ashton obviously believes he has selected a front row that can now dominate the scrum - an area that has given the Wallabies numerous headaches in recent times.

In November 2005, Andrew Sheridan and Vickery were the props as England鈥檚 front row at Twickenham, leaving the Wallaby scrum going backwards at a rate of knots.

Phil Vickery

The Wallaby scrum has improved since then so is it a case of Ashton putting all his tactical eggs into one basket? He would argue that he is simply picking a team that can exploit a perceived weakness and give his side an attacking platform, but in going with Vickery and Regan, Ashton has dispensed with two in-form players.

Matt Stevens and George Chuter are the pair in question and no-one would blame them if they felt a wee bit aggrieved at missing out.

Chuter鈥檚 throwing to the line-out has been impressive. He only missed one of his jumpers against Tonga, while Stevens has been an energetic and mobile force around the pitch as well as being able to put the squeeze on at the set piece.

That plan may work and England may get the set-piece dominance they so desperately require, but retaining possession and getting quick ball is another matter entirely. Subsequently, the back-row must be an area of concern for England fans.

Ashton has decided to retain Martin Corry on the blind-side, Lewis Moody on the open-side, with Nick Easter at number eight. And he has resisted calling on the lively Tom Rees, England's only out-and-out open-side, despite being fit. Rees has been left out of the match-day 22 completely.

Moody certainly made his presence felt in his first start of the World Cup but although there is no doubting his ability to get to the breakdown quickly, England have looked slow to follow him 鈥 leaving him isolated and exposed.

George Smith

On the 2001 Lions tour to Australia, the then skipper Martin Johnson told his players at half-time of the first Test that 鈥渋f we stop George Smith, we win the game鈥.

Six years later, Australia鈥檚 aggressive and agile number seven - assisted by back-row colleagues Rocky Elsom and Wycliff Palu - remains a dominant force and England鈥檚 back-row know they will have a tough time in containing him if they are not quick and ferocious at the breakdown.

And then there is also the return of a certain Andy Farrell - and what a stink that has caused.

The Rugby Football Union's expensive rugby league convert disappeared from the starting line-up following the but after England鈥檚 midfield against Tonga was found wanting defensively, Ashton has turned again to Farrell in order to add direct running, a physical presence as well as some 鈥渓eadership鈥 to the back-line.

The Saracens inside centre, who convinced Ashton of his selection when powering his way through the Tongan defence for a try after coming on as a substitute, has been called upon to halt the charges of both Matt Giteau and Stirling Mortlock and will need to be right on his game if he is to prevent those star turns from causing merry hell.

And his inclusion has not gone down at all well in certain quarters. England's World Cup winning scrum-half Matt Dawson for one questioned his decision-making ability when the heat is on.

"I can't grasp what Andy Farrell has done to warrant being brought into the side," he told 大象传媒 Radio 5live. "Yes, he scored a try against a tiring Tongan side. Fantastic, well done. In pressure games, against Ireland at Croke Park and against South Africa at Stade de France a couple of weeks ago, he was found wanting. So to bring him back into the biggest game England have had for four years, I do have to question."

Ouch.

Another notable inclusion is that of Jason Robinson, who looked for all the world to be heading into retirement when he pulled up clutching his hamstring against South Africa.

His selection at full-back will not be welcomed by the Australians, whose wing Lote Tuqiri earlier this week said he was "the only world-class back England have playing in form at the moment".

Aussie full-back Chris Latham, meanwhile, will not need reminding that he was the man skinned by Robinson on the outside when the .

Our very own "Billy Whizz" may have lost a yard of pace since then and certain teams may have worked out how to defend against him from deep, but he has looked like one of England's most dangerous backs at this year's World Cup.

England head into Saturday's contest in a positive frame of mind following two straight wins but they are still massive underdogs against the Wallabies. The odds are stacked against them but if they can get it right, you never know, they might just do it.

Mark Orlovac is a 大象传媒 Sport journalist based in London. He will be based in Paris for the knockout stages of the Rugby World Cup.


Comments  Post your comment

  • 1.
  • At 06:00 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • Vince Hilaire wrote:

In a way, it's nice to go into the game as underdogs. With nothing to lose, we can play relaxed and hope that the Aussies will choke under the pressure.

  • 2.
  • At 06:13 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • steve wrote:

Chuter must be gutted. The stand out forward two tests running, now warming the bench. Ashton the 'visionary' is yet again falling back on the tried and tested (or should that be tried and found wanting) as opposed to looking to the future.

By the way, did anyone think of retorting to Tuqiri that while Robinson might be the only world class back we've got, he might just be the one non-world class back they've got?

  • 3.
  • At 06:43 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • al wrote:

Don't forget England won the scrum against SA & look where that ended up

  • 4.
  • At 06:44 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • ian macko wrote:

Matt Dawson can bang on about Farrell not performing in pressure games.Excuse me Matt Dawson,Farrell has be playing pressure games since he was 17 years old week in and week out.Farrell for years has been playing against the best Rugby team on the planet the Australian RL team,so this is a massive step down in oppostion.Can you imagine Matt Dawson trying to compete in a RL Test Match,somehow i don't think so,he would have been lucky to make the grade in RL.

  • 5.
  • At 06:47 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • Tim Venables wrote:

As long as we don't lose like to South Africa I'm not that bothered, after all, an Australia win and consequent revenge won't be as meaningful as the last WC meeting, as I can't see either of us (99% chance it's the Aussies to be fair) beating the All Blacks in the next round.

  • 6.
  • At 06:49 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • a norwegian wrote:

I understand that Lord Nelson, Lord Beaverbrook, Sir Winston Churchill, Sir Anthony Eden, Clement Attlee and Henry Cooper are all going round Maggie Thatcher's on Saturday afternoon to watch the match.

  • 7.
  • At 06:53 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • Rich T wrote:

Spot on about the back row. Winning the set piece is all very well but if you can't keep it when the ball is loose...Australia have a knack of winning games with very little ball and I can't see our back row snaffling much back from Smith and co. Swing Low....

  • 8.
  • At 06:55 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • cheech wrote:

I would be intersted to see what England supporters make of the line up.
I am not sure whether Stevens should have been dropped, even for the captain although i do think that Shaw has a lot more vesratility than borthwick,
as for the backrow, Moody was outstanding against Tonga but Against australia i think he is going to be isolated, I don't understand why Corry and Easter both Play together. I rate them both as eights but Corry lacks any pace what so ever when conparing him against any other world class flanker,

Just a thought.

  • 9.
  • At 07:11 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • Tim Venables wrote:

As long as we don't lose like to South Africa I'm not that bothered, after all, an Australia win and consequent revenge won't be as meaningful as the last WC meeting, as I can't see either of us (99% chance it's the Aussies to be fair) beating the All Blacks in the next round.

  • 10.
  • At 07:28 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

After the SA performance there is no chance for England on saturday, especially with farrell in midfield. He is a world class league player but i feel he could have done with a lot more time in the premiership before being chucked into the national team. England's main problem is a lack of dynamism at the breakdown which is what puts NZ a cut above the rest.

The changes Ashton has made in the front row are strange.... there's not a lot between Chuter and Reagan but i feel Chuter offers more in the loose and has a more reliable throw in the lineout. I believe Vickery is back purely because he is the captain. Stevens is a better all round prop and should be in the team, which brings Vickery's captaincy into question. Surely the captain should be the first name on the team sheet......a Mr J Wilkinson maybe?

  • 11.
  • At 07:33 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • Rabbie wrote:

As a scot I am very disappointed with the team for Saturday. I was looking forward to seeing England give those Aussies a lesson after their manager's remarks about 2hating2 the english. No-one especially not an aussie shouldbe allowed to speak like that about our neighbours - only we can speak about them like that.

Unfortunately I don't think Vickery and regan are going to improve England's chances in the loose and I feel it is very unfair on Stevens and Chuter who have been two of the better players for England.

  • 12.
  • At 07:42 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • thewill wrote:

Oh God, no. Farrell? He was a great RL player but he hasn't got the pace for a Union centre. Also, his kicking from hand is the worst of any of our inside centres.
Regan- too old, non-existent against SA and USA. A slightly better scrummager than Chuter (who has been brilliant), but when you've only got two line-out forwards in there (Kay and Moody) you need you're best thrower.

  • 13.
  • At 07:45 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • thewill wrote:

Should drop Tait. Againt the physicality of Mortlock and Latham we need a big guy who cn hold the ball and tackle. Hipkiss has egood pace, and can off-load well. Remember Tindall coming in for Catt in '03- he played the game of his life against Mortlock, and the rest ws history.
Can't wait until Ashton is gone, and Jonno becomes England coach.

  • 14.
  • At 07:54 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • Jon S wrote:

Aside from the front row I'm reasonably pleased with the starting XV. I think Vickery and Regan are both extremely lucky to get the nod to start as Chuter and Stevens have both been excellent in the last two matches.

I am a Barkley fan but he hasn't imposed himself on either of his previous outings at 12 and you know with Farrell you should have physical direction and superb distribution.

I guess all will be revealed on Saturday...

  • 15.
  • At 07:55 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • ryan wrote:

wrong to take stevens and chuter out.
the front row has been solid with them two in so why change the inform pair to accomidate for ashtons favorates?

  • 16.
  • At 08:21 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • Steve wrote:

Hmmm. I think it's all a bit too cautious to be honest. Still going along with the "push em off the ball up front and give it to Wilko" which I really don't see as a winning tactic, just slow dumb rugby. I'd have liked to have seen Rees and Moody mix it up with the Aussies and let's face it Chuter's been great recently. Just those three would give at least a bit of dynamism going forwards. Instead what we've got is some kind of lumbering dinosoar pack that will trundle around like a tank, providing good cover for the light infantry behind, but not really going anywhere. We'll see if it works... Can't fault Farrell's selection though, Olly's good but isn't up to the job I'm afraid.

  • 17.
  • At 08:28 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • stewart wrote:

Having been in France for the last 2 games I am dismayed by this selection,we are exposed for pace in the back row and the inclusion of Regan is ludicrous.We can only hope that Vickerey and Farrell repay Ashton's blind faith with a massive performance and wilko gets the opportunity to get some points on the board early doors otherwise it will be south africa deja vu but that is probably better than playing NZ.

  • 18.
  • At 08:36 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • Rick Worth wrote:

Dawson's comments about Andy Farrell show why Brian Ashton is the England coach and Dawson appears on celebrity Strictly Come Dancing and Masterchef.

  • 19.
  • At 08:54 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • Jason wrote:

In terms of intelligent composed rugby the Aussies are streets ahead of everyone, they are very tactical , cute ( in a brain sense people) and confident. They will beat England ,not by a big score but it will be a convincing well structured game plan, and England will b e out planned and outplayed

  • 20.
  • At 09:18 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • James wrote:

Can't help but feel that the game plan is to keep the ball away from the Aussies, kick the occasional penalty, and maybe score a try on the break. Also can't help but feel it won't work. Unless defeat has been conceded, and the plan is to keep the margin down.

  • 21.
  • At 09:23 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • Patrick wrote:

Good God. Is Ashton determined to commit suicide? Is he being paid by Australia? To get rid of Chuter and Stevens and bring in Farrell and Vickery is one of the worst decisions I've ever seen. Chuter has been fantastic. And Farrell was appalling against SA. He spent the entire game gently kicking the ball into their hands and leaving England on the back foot. That was when he wasn't passing to them, of course. When England lose this match, Ashton had better lose his job.

  • 22.
  • At 09:26 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • M. Elliott wrote:

Words words words so many words of such little meaning. AS IF ENGLAND HAVE A HOPE. My god what utter delusion all this analysis is pointless. England gets thrashed by SA the third placed side in the tri-nations. Then England have to field their top side (with Johnny back hallelujah) and manage to beat a less than average Samoan side followed by and a better than average Tongan side then suddenly they are going to pressure the Ozzies. Yeah right whatever dreams are free. Then we analyse this situation to death to come up with reasons to gives ourselves a hope that by some wild imaginings and pointless suppositions that we have a chance. The simple fact is that at whatever the field of sporting endeavour the Ozzies play only to win from the minute they pull on that green and gold. To beat them you have to be a lot harder and tougher than England are with their old recycled players and the rest under skilled and underpowered. This is just like the football world cup all the hype in the world is not gonna disguise the fact that the first class team England meet it will be goodnight nurse. Dream over thank god then will not have to see hear read all these fairy stories and just in case you think otherwise I am not an Ozzie far from it.

  • 23.
  • At 09:35 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • wrote:

The problem in the games where England have played badly has been a slow pack who have not won enough second phase, so we pick the slowest pack again. Actually, I've not been particularly impressed by the Aussies in the games they've played, but they must be slight favourites. Oh well, if we're out, at least we'll see an end of this endless carping about Farrell. Thank goodness for all the objective postings who can go beyond prejudice and see that he is at least the strongest defensive inside centre we have.

  • 24.
  • At 09:38 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • Rob Whittle wrote:

England are underdogs. Ashton has put out his best side IMO, with strong players on the bench in Worsley, Dalalio, Chuter.

My only gripe is Regan over Chuter -Chuter has been playing well at lineouts and open play, scummaging must be the tilting factor possibly.

For England its a Final situation - 100%. The Aussies has a class backline and kicking game though!

  • 25.
  • At 10:06 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • Karl wrote:

Ashton has picked the best back line he could. Not sure if Tait is going to be good enough against Mortlock but not many centres are. Farrell at 12 is right. Everyone else picked there has been useless. But it only works with Gomersall and Wilko at 9 and 10.

Shocked that Chuter has missed out. He's been fantastic in the last 2 games.

I'm disappointed Borthwick isn't there either.

Why bother with Dallagio at all? If you've got Worseley on the bench you don't need the old man. Pick Rees if he's really that quick -someone to counter Smith. That's what Neil Back was so good at doing.

I think Ashton has taken a risk in only picking the trundlers in the forwards, but quite frankly, what choice has he got? We are pretty rubbish in this World Cup and the only way to beat the Aussies is to stick the ball up our jumpers... if we manage to lay our hands on it at all.

  • 26.
  • At 10:21 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • D Sutherland wrote:

Patrick, why should Ashton lose his job if England lose? Eddie O'Sullivan seems to be comfortable enough about not making the quarters. Why should Ashton pay the price for not making the semis? Not that I'm a fan of his. He's just a typical England manager (regardless of the sport) and suffers from tactical ineptitude.

If England win, it will be due to a massive dose of good fortune. Would be nice to see though, I'd love to see the smug grins wiped off the aussie faces.

They are looking pretty formidable though. If Australia do win, as I fear they will, I'll be cheering for the ABs in the semi-final.

  • 27.
  • At 10:26 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • jimbobthebuilder wrote:

oh nonsense M. Elliot. England never had a hope in hell 4 years ago either agains the aussies, but they still managed it somehow.

  • 28.
  • At 10:37 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • jimbobthebuilder wrote:

oh nonsense M. Elliot. England never had a hope in hell 4 years ago either agains the aussies, but they still managed it somehow.

  • 29.
  • At 10:44 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • john savage wrote:

I wonder if Mr Ashton has succumbed to the pull of politics. Like previous commentors put, Vickery is not an obvious selection over Matt Stevens except as Captain, and Farrell is high profile and cost alot of money to bring in, playing him or should I say gambling on him could save a lot more embarassment. I feel Poor Mr Ashton has to play his own little game of two halves when flicking his fingers over who is going to represent his Country.
I hope we go alright as they say, it would be nice to pull it out of the bag, but I have to say I would believe a David Copperfield trick before a win over Oz at the moment.

  • 30.
  • At 11:02 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • Glass is half full wrote:

Has anyone else noticed that the England camp are only concerned with how England are going to play, but the Aussies appear to be spouting off about England and English players, rather than their own game?

Our gradual improvement apparently hasn't been lost on them.......and we know how much they "hate England"
Have we got them rattled? Hope so!

  • 31.
  • At 11:07 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • Pete wrote:

The only reason I can see for dropping Chuter and Stevens is to confuse Australia and maybe alter any game plan they had (although I can't see that is the case).

There's no way there were dropped on form as they have been excellent.

If baffling the Aussies was your plan Brian, then consider it a success as you've managed to baffle your own nation as well.

....and that's without even mentioning Andy Farrell.....

  • 32.
  • At 11:08 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • nick wrote:

Winning against the odds is all about belief, here is hoping that the Eng players have more than M. Elliot. Of course Eng are underdogs but there are many occasions that we and the bookies have been surprised. France Vs NZ in 1999. Aus Vs NZ in Semi-F 2003. Arg Vs France 2007. There are plenty of winners in the Eng set up and if we can conjure up the belief of the awesome Argentineans we have a decent chance...

  • 33.
  • At 11:21 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • gary wood wrote:


As an Englishman living in Australia
The form of Australia coming into the World cup was poor at best.England need to focus more on how many they will win by and not how many they will lose by!Australia will not be entertaining any thought of losing. strong in body will lose to strong in mind everytime!

  • 34.
  • At 11:27 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • Mat wrote:

Eng 24-18 Aus, Jonny will do the damage, as usual. The Aussies are brickin it for this game

  • 35.
  • At 11:31 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • Hugh wrote:

D Sutherland, it's not about England losing but about how they lose. Ashton has selected a team that is going to play negative rugby and the most likely result is one similar to the one against South Africa.

  • 36.
  • At 11:55 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • Matt Williamson wrote:

jimbobthebuilder - there's a huge difference between now and 4 years ago - England were the best team in the world 4 years ago and for the two years before that. They're ranked 7 in the world now.

I agree with most people on the board. I understand why Ashton has done this, but I think he has gone too far. I agree that Farrell will probably will be better suited to this game than Barkley who has done nothing at 12.

However, Chuter and Stevens must be gutted, as they have both played well in their 'usual' roles and in the loose. I am also disappointed Rees isn't in the starting lineup - I would have accepted Vickery in as captain for Stevens with Rees at 7, Moody at 6 and Corry on the bench.

  • 37.
  • At 11:58 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • gary wood wrote:


As an Englishman living in Australia
The form of Australia coming into the World cup was poor at best.England need to focus more on how many they will win by and not how many they will lose by!Australia will not be entertaining any thought of losing. strong in body will lose to strong in mind everytime!

  • 38.
  • At 12:19 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Will wrote:

Lads I鈥檓 a proud Aussie- must apologise for our ARU boss using the word hate. Just a marketing ploy and besides we don鈥檛 hate the Poms鈥e just like beating them (alot).
As for the weekends game, I think the biggest folly Ashton has made is not picking a specialist 7. Smith is, in my opinion, every bit as valuable to a team as R McCaw, and if he is not checked it will make any dominance you have in the scrum redundant. This of course is putting to the side the fact that most likely we will have one P Waugh sitting on the bench.
Secondly, the notion that England will bully Australia in the pack showdown is a 鈥2 year ago鈥 notion. Shepherdson, Vickerman, Elsom and Palu are all physical, Waugh and McMeniman on the bench are two of the angriest (though skilful) players in World Rugby.
Thirdly, Farrell on Giteau and Tait on Mortlock!? That is a mismatch of monumental proportions. As an Aussie I have a lot of time for the skill of league players BUT the fact remains if Farrell was playing league he鈥檇 be playing as a lock and definitely not marking a twinkle toes like Giteau.
Best of luck lads, my therapy has just finished from 2003, so I really hope the Wallabies don鈥檛 let me down. But anything can happen!

  • 39.
  • At 12:33 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Nick Lay wrote:

The trick is not to get drawn into the Aussie "is that all you've got?" psycho-babble about England's greater reliance on the set play. If we attempt to play open rugby to pander to their carefully-manipulated wind-ups, we are most likely to come very heavily unstuck. So playing mainly through our strongest possible 1-8 is paramount.

Let's bully them and not care if they don't like the supposed negativity. After all, the inflammatory and inciting (but NOT insightful!) remarks of the ARU's John O'Neill have left nothing to the imagination regardless of how we play, or the result itself.

If St George could slay a dragon, he can certainly do the same to a few kangas this Saturday!

  • 40.
  • At 12:53 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Tom Go Wallabies!!! wrote:

U poms get all excited when u win 2 meaningless games in a row? HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAA Please dont make me laugh anymore than i already have. THe Aussies thrashed the likes of Fiji and Samoa and TOnga in recent years by 80 point margins and all u could muster was a 20 point victory. There is no way Engalnd can win it. For starters they and the English rugby fans are still living in the past a la 2003 WC Final. Australia's long hard slog back to the top of world rugby hasn't been easy but it all started straight after that WC. It seems that ur boys are still enjoying an open top bus ride around trafalgar square.

Farrell is useless and can't possibly containt giteau or mortlock. They are close ot being the best centre pairing and most consistant cos they've been playin along each other longer than any other centre pairing in the cup. And thankfully now we have world class forwards lining up, confident that they can take apart England's set pieces. Oh yeah the the only set piece they have is get the ball to johnny rotten and kick a drop goal. Robinson is the only class player there and is the only one likely to score a try. Sorrry England but thanks for making up the numbers in the QFs. And bring on an all Southern Hemisphere Semi-finals!

  • 41.
  • At 12:53 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Mat wrote:

Eng 24-18 Aus, Jonny to score all the points. Aussie are brickin themselves for this game, no larkham = English victory!

  • 42.
  • At 01:00 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Simon wrote:

FARRELL must play- he is the only centre with enough physical presence to make the grade. Barkley, Noon, Flood, etc all too small and Catt-like (eg. v Lomu) in the tackle. All he has to do is make tackles and break the line every now and then. And if he could be quicker to taking the kick and not commit to the tackle too early then he'd be a great Englan centre.

  • 43.
  • At 02:08 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • David wrote:

As a patriotic Scotsman it grates me to say it but I think I'll be supporting England this weekend.

I'm in Oz at the moment and their media (written and broadcast) is unbearable - they're already looking ahead to a semi with the All Blacks (who they are convinced will choke) and a final with the Boks. Their arrogance is driving me up the wall, as is their commentary. I'm longing for the 大象传媒!

  • 44.
  • At 02:55 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Mark pemberton wrote:

I live in Melbourne the home of Australian sport, I hope we can shove it to the aussies as i am sick of hearing how lucky we were last time around
All the tv channels are talking England up as a big threat to their chances especially the Pack
Give it your all boys I dont mind if we win the wORLD CUP, beating the Aussies will be good enough for me
Mark
Melbourne

  • 45.
  • At 03:24 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • gary wood wrote:

David the jocko wrote, he would be supporting England over Australia. I have been living in oz for about 14 years and listening to their one sided broardcasts and their sheer hatred of the poms. It does after a while grind on you to the degree that i would rather any side( and i mean any side )beat australia.They calls the poms whingers but believe me there is a constant whining sound in my ears from their contant complaining and lack of respect for anyone.So go England do it for all the long suffering Brits in Australia

  • 46.
  • At 03:40 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • joe wrote:

Farrel and Tait is definately our best option against mortlock and giteau - our boys are not as good (but then who is?) , but Farrell won't make any mistakes and I doubt he'll miss any tackles and Tait has the ability to skin either of the aussie boys on the outside given wilko's and farrel's distribution skills - I have been waiting to see this centre pairing since the squad was announced!!

We will have the upper hand in the scrums there will be parity in the lineout - but we are definately going to have to get round the park and hit the breakdown with brimstone and hellfire if we are to avoid turnovers!

I don't think we will win, but I am hoping for a close and exciting match!!

  • 47.
  • At 04:19 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • gareth wrote:

I agree with Nick Lay. Whatever combination England play in the backs they don't have anyone in midlfield to match the Aussies.

However in the front 5 they probably have the best in the competition. The set plays for England have been great but once it gets out to that back line they look pedestrian.

Long term England desperately need to sort out their back play. For this game? Remember the lessons of '91 and stick it up the jumper. It's the only way they have a chance.

  • 48.
  • At 04:46 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • wrote:

As a Scot who has lived in OZ for 20 years now, It amuses me no end with all this talk about how arrogant the Australians are. What a load of crap. Sure they have their share, just like anywhere else. But they shouldn't have to apologise for being confident under adversity. It is a trait I very much grown to admire. They often might not be the best team, but they fight for the entire 80 minutes, and they back themselves. Yes O'Neill's comments were stupid, but he is actually a very good administrator (who just got a little carried away trying to rally his troops - not that they really needed it, it is OZ vs ENG afterall).

  • 49.
  • At 06:25 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • 'anyone but England'-not me i am english wrote:

lets get behind this team , lets smite the Aussie....GO england GO>..... Let moan after the game......THis is our team ....our england......Our chance...

  • 50.
  • At 06:54 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Stonethecrows wrote:

Yes England will dominate the scrum with the personnel selected by Brian Ashton.
The break down will be the crucial area and if we compete on equal terms there, we have a reasonable chance.

There have been a few disparaging comments by those Australians who will remain nameless (M Elliot) but the South African game was memorable for the fact that England didnt have a fly half.

Now we have Jonny Wilkinson.

If I had hard criticism of Ashton's team selection it would likely be Tait's inclusion at the expense of Hipkiss. I would also swap Robinson and Lewsey. Lewsey's defensive ability is better suited to Full Back.

  • 51.
  • At 07:06 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • wrote:

I think that an English win is posible. Not probable, but posible.

If they can dominate the forward play and play in Australia's half then they are in with a chance but I feel that Australia will go for the same stratergy. In the end it may well come down to who can play to plan best.

Englands weakness are its backs and that's a real problem because Australia is strong in every position, especialy the backs. I agree that some of the selections are strange.

Nick you are spot on re the over blown diatribe about Australians being arrogant. They are no more cocky than any other team. In fact some of the arrogance displayed by Woodward and some of his players in '03 and '05 was very cringe worthy. As for O'Neal I'm surprised by the over reaction. (The story was 5 days old before the English got all excited by it!) The two countries have a sporting rivalry that no other two countries in the world could boast and I think it's great. It's all a sign of the pasion and by getting upset about those kind of coments sort of misses the point.

My experiance of international Rugby is that teams always lift for the big ones so you never know. Also, Australia has a peculiar habit of playing down to other teams who are not playing well. Also expect some argy bargy which I love.

  • 52.
  • At 07:13 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Hand of God wrote:

Robinson has been the best (World Cup's best) performer of a rather dour English backline.......God help them in the breakdown......

  • 53.
  • At 07:31 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Trevor Moss wrote:

Oh Dear, is Brian Ashton simply an English football manager in disguise? Not picking your form players, picking "experience" (experience of losing and playing poorly?), playing players out of position, tinkering with selection for a team that was winning and improving. I despair.
Regan was rubbish against US, line outs awful. Chuter great in loose and line outs against Tonga perfect. Cue selection of Regan for his "experience" when its clear an extra back row that can do his front row job as well might actually be useful against the Aussies. Moody, a blind side, selected at openside against the best/2nd best openside in the world. No contest. Corry, always a journeyman number 8 picked at blind side. Stevens, the outstanding prop so far and who formed a great front row with Chuter and the impressive Sheridan, replaced by Vickery. Why? Oh yes, "experience". Experienced at tripping yes. In form and fit? No.
As for the backs; Farrell, how many chances does he need to prove he's not up to the job? Yes we need some bulk to stop Mortlock, but what has the best centre in English rugby last year, Hipkiss, done wrong exactly? Oh I forgot, Farrell had a good 15mins against a demoralised Tonga and scored an easy try. Lets forget about the previous 1000 mins of International rugby where he has looked clueless.
It is this sort of unsound thinking and daft selections that is the hallmark of England in its two primary team sports. Good luck England, I am praying you will pull it off, but am going to record the game and only watch it if there's a miracle. Otherwise I shall just be ranting at the television. I think I am going to go and rant at Peter Taylor's latest daft selections at Palace. Armchair critic? Prefer the terraces myself.

  • 54.
  • At 07:48 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Robin wrote:

Dominate the scrum! hurray!
Unfortunately there are far more rucks and mauls than scrums. Do you see the back row being first to the breakdown? They are so slow they may even be third behind the ref!
Its a pity the majority of Englands strongest 15 will be playing GP this weekend. Adious England.

  • 55.
  • At 08:11 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Jeremy wrote:

England the underdog? England with nothing to lose and Australia with everything to lose? I think not. As Clive Woodward joyfully pointed out before the last world cup final 鈥 the Australians are the world champions and are the ones to beat. Now the shoes on the other foot and it is England are the world champs and it is they who are the team to beat and they who have everything to lose 鈥 namely that precious Web Ellis silver where. Make no mistake 鈥 as the current title holders, England are the team to beat and are the ones who are under the most pressure of any country including NZ.

  • 56.
  • At 08:28 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Steve wrote:

My only comment is this: After the South Africa game, Australia would have been worrying only about the semi final against New Zealand. But then England won 2 games on the trot. So now maybe the Aussies have given about 5 mins thought on the England Game. We do not have a chance and as soon as people realise that England are a not a good side (at the moment)the better. Just enjoy what the Southern Hemisphere have done this world cup. Look at Ireland and Wales. It has been lost at the breakdown. All the Northern sides need to look at this. AUS, NZ, SA and even ARG have been quicker and more dynamic here. The oither sides have pretty much just been lazy at this crucial part of the match. No longer will sides just let you have the ball, they contest everything.

They almost all have what sumounts to 3 open sides. All have power, guile and pace to burn. Tom Rees should have been in there, at least he gets to the breakdown's. Chuter and Stevens should be starting, Ashton, has now shown he is clueless. I think we should give Farrel his dues, he has to have at least one good game for England. (Hopefully he will be able to keep the score down on Saturday).

  • 57.
  • At 08:37 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • I.M.Fedupwivit wrote:

I was there for SA and Tonga matches. SA was a joke. Tonga if they kept their heads up could have turned us over. Two lapses in concentration cost them. How on earth is Tait an international centre? Yes he runs fast but does he defend? Selection seems baffling at times and you wonder who influences that. On the subject of Farrell I think he has to play, we have few alternatives and he is probably the best distributor in the side. Hipkiss has obviously done something wrong maybe he went to the wrong school? With the team we have I am sure we will kick a lot, it had better be good! If we play well Aus by 10 and if we are not so good ..... ouch!!!

  • 58.
  • At 08:48 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • b谋ll sweeney wrote:

we'll w谋n th谋s one one easy and then lose to the boks. oz have no front row, we'll dom谋nate 谋n the set and our poor backs w谋ll have enough to w谋n. unfortunately they have probably the best player 谋n the world 谋n mortlock, but....
then 谋 can enjoy the b谋ggest ever steak com谋ng to me from my devastated down under mates.

  • 59.
  • At 08:58 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Robken wrote:

England will get hammered by Australia. They are devoid of any flair behind the scrum. When was the last time you saw an England try that made you say wow! Andy Farrell was a Rugby league great but posseses none of the skill required to play union. England do not have the right to compete with Australia....they simply are not good enough

  • 60.
  • At 09:01 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • b谋ll sweeney wrote:

we'll w谋n th谋s one one easy and then lose to the boks. oz have no front row, we'll dom谋nate 谋n the set and our poor backs w谋ll have enough to w谋n. unfortunately they have probably the best player 谋n the world 谋n mortlock, but....
then 谋 can enjoy the b谋ggest ever steak com谋ng to me from my devastated down under mates.

  • 61.
  • At 09:14 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • john savage wrote:

To Peter,

Jason Robinson is every bit as good at Full back as Lewsey in terms of physicality. I have not seen JR miss a tackle at Full Back against any one of any size. He has an almost judo/ninja approach to tackling big units the way he uses there weight against themselves and pulls them down. Reminds me of a Lion tackling a Buffalo. I think support getting to the breakdown early is also the responsibilty of the ball carriers, making the right lines and not isolating themselves (easier when you have alot of gas) we need to be clever about how we take the ball forward to try and avoid disparity in that area.

  • 62.
  • At 09:18 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Michael S wrote:

The POMS are in for a hiding again

The Aussies rule the turf, just get use to it

  • 63.
  • At 09:29 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Stewart Gardener wrote:

Completely agree with some of the posts on here. I am an English man living in Australia and am completely fed up with the idiotic and bias Australian press. The Commentators are frustrating to say the least, comments like "England sucking the life out of the game" just rile me! Unfortunately this is not just confined to Rugby, and like many others I would support any team against Australia in any sport. I pray that our "boring" style of playing is good enough to beat these whinging arrogant convicts! COME ON ENGLAND!!

  • 64.
  • At 09:30 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Scott the Aussie wrote:

The way I remember the SA was that SA took off as amany of thier first choice players after about 50 minutes.....otherwise it may have been a cricket score!

England do have a chance to win, particularly if it pouring rain, and the Aussie backs and loose forwards misfire.

Otherwise Australia by 20+

  • 65.
  • At 09:58 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Richard Steeds wrote:

Well the only hope we have is for Farrell to get injured in the next training run! The Aussies will have a field day... he has not done anything of any note! Against South Africa he was CLUELESS!

  • 66.
  • At 10:05 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Nick wrote:

Its going to be a cracking weekend of rugby, The early predictions are floggings for the three Northern teams by there Southern Hemisphere counterparts.

The reality of this will probably still be argued on Monday morning when British sports critics lament Eng getting a tough game against Australia. Sad reality is, England don't deserve to be in the last eight.

They have plodded round the field on four appearances, they show no intent with ball in hand and the only time supporters break in to the chorus of 'sweat chariot' is when they score from a painful cross kick.

Shall anyone have sympathy for where England have ended up at the bottom of the ladder in terms of professional teams. No, why, because for four years the southern hemisphere has listened to all and sundry about what it takes to win world cups. Yet when it matters these same players and coaches have produced nothing this time round. Was 2003 a fluke, potentially. If we analyse the facts the first four world cups were won by teams from the south and if this world cup continues it is a safe bet to say the south will capture another one.

With out expressing further opinion, lets re-visit the comment of the week. "Everyone hates England". I for one hope that Australia batter the Poms this week, and I guarantee that all my Australian, Kiwi, South African, Polynesian, Argentine friends will be hoping for the same thing.

Wait for Monday!, I'm sure the spin doctors will try to put positives on the England campaign.

  • 67.
  • At 10:09 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • MartinjAnderson wrote:

OK - so the Aussies have the uppper hand - nut they did last time....we all know what happened.

Farrell - will prove decisive if he shows his true ability...which he has not fully yet.

We have a chance - but we also have lots of Pride.... remember the Invinsible All Blacks v France......strange things can happen ...BUT ONLY IF WE PLAY OUR GAME and NOT theirs!!

  • 68.
  • At 10:10 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Pete wrote:

Its unbelieveable that farrell is in the team, he is nowhere near good enough to play for england, he should be dropped form the squad altogether after the RWC. and to drop two of our best players in Chuter and Stevens just shows that Ashton doesn't think we have a chance, i'm just surprised that dallaglio hasn't worked his way in, hes got LOADS of experience AND hasn't had a particularly good RWC.

  • 69.
  • At 10:10 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • tony d wrote:

I think we have made a serious error in retaining tait and corry -there is speed and power but not in the right place - surely this is the game for moody, easter and worsley to start in the back row!!!

Tait is too small for this game and Stevens is better than Vickery. Full stop - The aussies are not the scrum mugs they were two / three years ago.

Our form Hooker has been dropped and other form players are on the bench, I cant believe that Ashton used to be described as a "forward thinking, innovative coach" - what is this guy on?

  • 70.
  • At 10:12 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • alex wrote:

the great concern for England is its back three. Corry is a lock, Easter is slow and Moody lacks nouse. Back, Hill and Dallaglio knew every trick in the book and those three were a very big part of why we won four years ago.

  • 71.
  • At 10:14 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • chearypimms wrote:

Just reading some of the comments "pom this" "Oz that" personally don't give a stuff Australia is a great side, however they had a pretty rubbish run not so long ago how many games did they loose in a row? England are in the same "historical window" I would suggest, and with the inclusion of Farrell we are not going to get out of it a hurry, I like the open top bus comment though (some truth in that I suspect) BA has made an error in selection. Prediction for the game.....I will be drinking real ale none of that larger rubbish! Good wishes to all

  • 72.
  • At 10:21 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Nick wrote:

Its going to be a cracking weekend of rugby, The early predictions are floggings for the three Northern teams by there Southern Hemisphere counterparts.

The reality of this will probably still be argued on Monday morning when British sports critics lament Eng getting a tough game against Australia. Sad reality is, England don't deserve to be in the last eight.

They have plodded round the field on four appearances, they show no intent with ball in hand and the only time supporters break in to the chorus of 'sweat chariot' is when they score from a painful cross kick.

Shall anyone have sympathy for where England have ended up at the bottom of the ladder in terms of professional teams. No, why, because for four years the southern hemisphere has listened to all and sundry about what it takes to win world cups. Yet when it matters these same players and coaches have produced nothing this time round. Was 2003 a fluke, potentially. If we analyse the facts the first four world cups were won by teams from the south and if this world cup continues it is a safe bet to say the south will capture another one.

With out expressing further opinion, lets re-visit the comment of the week. "Everyone hates England". I for one hope that Australia batter the Poms this week, and I guarantee that all my Australian, Kiwi, South African, Polynesian, Argentine friends will be hoping for the same thing.

Wait for Monday!, I'm sure the spin doctors will try to put positives on the England campaign.

  • 73.
  • At 10:34 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Bruce wrote:

I want the first team to win the Cup three times to be the first team to defend it.

And yet Australia s poses a definite challenge to the AB's. So I wish England all the best.

May it rain.

  • 74.
  • At 10:35 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • mark wrote:

Maybe bext time you can do a Blog and try and fathom how the hell a retired rugby league prop forward with a dodgy knee and no pace can get picked at center for England RU and also how RU is as inclusive sport as it gives fat people like Matt Stevens a chance to play sport.

  • 75.
  • At 10:35 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • alex wrote:

the great concern for England is its back three. Corry is a lock, Easter is slow and Moody lacks nouse. Back, Hill and Dallaglio knew every trick in the book and those three were a very big part of why we won four years ago.

  • 76.
  • At 10:42 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Andy Lipscombe wrote:

"Farrell has be playing pressure games since he was 17 years old week in and week out.Farrell for years has been playing against the best Rugby team on the planet the Australian RL team"

Fair enough but he has not performed well enough in rugby UNION pressure games to warrant inclusion in the squad. We are not discussing Farrell's ability to play Rugby League!

Too many people think that good league players will automatically be good in Union becasue league is such as "superior" game. The League and Union are vastly different games and require very different tactics. The ability to play one (League), which I'll admit generally requires higher levels of fitness than Union, does not automatically mean he can play as well in Union.

Your comments, Ian Macko, have no substance. Dawson CAN play Union pressure games as he has demonstrated and therefore he is able to comment on the ability of others (i.e. Farrell) to play Union pressure games.

  • 77.
  • At 10:52 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Bruce wrote:

I want the first team to win the Cup three times to be the first team to defend it.

And yet Australia s poses a definite challenge to the AB's. So I wish England all the best.

My it rain.

  • 78.
  • At 10:55 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • James wrote:

An England win is certainly unlikely but I'm surprised at how little is being made of the fact that Australia have a rookie fly half who has only played internationally in this tournament and then against sides against whom the sorry excuse of an Australian front five has managed at least parity. If England can squeeze the Australian ball at the set piece and get in Barnes' face, as well as sending some big runners dowen his channel, then we will see what he is made of. He may, of course, pass the test with flying colours but I can't help thinking that Australia may miss Larkham on Saturday.

While I'm here, this stuff about England ruining the game is way short of the mark. The biggest ruination of the world game has come through Australia's systematic attempts to de-power the scrummage and turn all forwards into identikit runners. Scrummaging, mauling, rucking etc. are all skills that are difficult to master and should be saluted rather than rejected as a distraction from pretty running. Is it obvious that I played in the second row?

  • 79.
  • At 10:59 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Bruce Holcomeb wrote:

Everyone gets very heated about the 'starting team' which menas less and less these days. If Vicks is picked to start, it doesn't automatically mean he is better that Stevens; it's just that he is more appropriate for a specific tactical job. I expect Ashton to use the bench fully. So, we spend the first half or maybe up to the hour keeping tight, rumbling and trying to wear out/demolish the Aussie pack, and then bring on the runners to find the holes late on in the game. This has been our winning formula over the last two games, so it may succeed, though all that presupposes, of course, that we are still in contention at that stage.

  • 80.
  • At 11:08 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Paul wrote:

Jeremy if you do not like it in oz and the media there come back to mother england and listen to the same media just spouting the reverse cr*p that the aussie media do!! Maybe then you will feel more comfortable!

I know i have had to listen to the english media for the last 11 years as an aussie in england with some remarks by one sports writer for the Sunday times bordering on racist towards his dislike of anything anitpodean. Does not make me feel anti english or "hate" england" just pity people that cannot differentiate that people are the same everywhere. You get the majority that are good and a minority that are idiots.

  • 81.
  • At 11:08 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • ozjock wrote:

Also got to disagree with the Oz arrogance comments. Lived in Oz for 6 years, and for the first couple it annoyed me. However, on coming back to the UK, I can honestly say that the coverage here is just as jingoistic and over the top (in all sports). Bring back Bill Mclaren!

  • 82.
  • At 11:15 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • alfie noakes the 2nd. wrote:

boys living down under, don't worry come Sunday rugby won't be in their papers anymore, except a small print edit of the result. England 23 Australia 12.

Remember we have not lost to the cons since 1991 in the wcup; 16 years ago. They are desperate for the elusive win, they haven't slept for 4 years. The pressure that they are under must be unbearable. Their bed, let them sleep in it.

This team is perfect, a few old men to give the brash impetulent aussies a lesson in manners and respect.

Don't worry about Chuter, Stevens, Rees and Hipkiss. Give them a rest, save the best for the last.

ALLEZ LE BLANC.

  • 83.
  • At 11:25 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • N Fowler wrote:

Mr. M. Elliott, with comments like these about your nation (I assume, as you say that you are not an aussie, that you are English) I can only wonder at why you watch sport at all, if we as a nation produce tactically inept coaches then how did we manage that result last RWC?........With Eng coaches!!

Does this belief transend your daily life? Makes me think two things.....1, What was the last thing that you believed in?
2, When did you last feel proud to be Eng/British?

We are not the AB's and so to lament on how we should be playing like them is as much of a waste of time as your comment. I can just picture Johnno's team talks now, 'right lads, forget whatever you have been taught before, this is how they do it in NZ so lets copy them and hope for the best'.

Embrace who we are and support your team, otherwise we are in danger of becoming as temperamental supporters as the French!!!

  • 84.
  • At 11:29 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • laughing jackass wrote:

so far this rwc has proved to be quite an intriguing tournament.the fighting argentines and fijians has certainly turned this comp on its head and made for riveting viewing.what twists lie ahead? i think that the idea of shortening the world cup should be put on hold.i hope the battle between the aussies and the poms will be what we have come to expect between these great sporting nations and that rugby wins out in the end.good luck to both teams.

  • 85.
  • At 11:35 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Simon wrote:

Will everyone who is on about 'nouse' please learn how to spell it (nous)? It's getting right on my nerves, and is up there with 'loose' for lose in the annoyance scale!!!!

  • 86.
  • At 11:35 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Cameron Phillips wrote:

Dropping chuter is huge mistake. We couldn't get our own lineout or scrum ball against SA. Farrell is class and, if he gets quick ball, His offloads to Tait coming in at pace off his shoulder could destroy any team.
Wilkison on the field means the Aussies are far less likely to break the rules at the breakdown as he will put away penalties. This shoud put the pack under less pressure. If England finally get it together they will cause an injury ravaged Australia problems. But we need a good throw a the lineout....

  • 87.
  • At 11:36 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Mike wrote:

Ashton is putting all his chips on red and hoping the ball doesn't land on black. At best a 50/50 call... The Eng pack is 'lumpy' and has been picked to win at scrum time. But this is risky... To win at scrum time, England need a ref that allows scrum domination (and lately this happens less and less) and they need to cope with the Aussies mastery at negating pure power. Large and powerful is no longer a guarantee at srum time.

The problem with this strategy is one of exposure at breakdown in other areas of the field. A problem compounded by a slightly less mobile Vickery and Regan...and amplified by imbalance in the backrow.

Aussie are a smart team. They slow your ball down and they keep their ball sweet. Only way to change that is to perform better at breakdown...but you have to get there first. Moody will but he'll need help. A more balanced combo would have been Rees, Moody and (probably) Easter.

Finally, even if England do dominate at scrum time and, let's say, win 20% more ball as a result or mess up 20% of the Aussie ball. Will this be enough to shade shortcomings at breakdown...I don't think so.

Aussie will take this one by 10 to 15 points

  • 88.
  • At 11:51 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Mike wrote:

Ashton is putting all his chips on red and hoping the ball doesn't land on black. At best a 50/50 call... The Eng pack is 'lumpy' and has been picked to win at scrum time. But this is risky... To win at scrum time, England need a ref that allows scrum domination (and lately this happens less and less) and they need to cope with the Aussies mastery at negating pure power. Large and powerful is no longer a guarantee at srum time.

The problem with this strategy is one of exposure at breakdown in other areas of the field. A problem compounded by a slightly less mobile Vickery and Regan...and amplified by imbalance in the backrow.

Aussie are a smart team. They slow your ball down and they keep their ball sweet. Only way to change that is to perform better at breakdown...but you have to get there first. Moody will but he'll need help. A more balanced combo would have been Rees, Moody and (probably) Easter.

Finally, even if England do dominate at scrum time and, let's say, win 20% more ball as a result or mess up 20% of the Aussie ball. Will this be enough to shade shortcomings at breakdown...I don't think so.

Aussie will take this one by 10 to 15 points

  • 89.
  • At 11:56 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • mikey P wrote:

let just hope that JW not speared in the first couple of minutes!! (SH teams have previous form in this regard).
yes on paper we should lose the game but its knockout now so anything can happen and with the amount of support that will be at the game (am off there tomorrow)just perhaps the team will raise their game particularly since it is the ausssies whose supporters are well known to "only wear the gold cos its free"!!!
agree with #80 - Chuter and Stevens on early second half against a tiring Aussie front row should be well worth watching!. - expect Aus to go for uncontested scrums at the earliest opportunity!
somehow fancy the French to run ABs into the ground too
..... nurse fetch me the medication !!!...


  • 90.
  • At 11:58 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • patrick reynolds wrote:

my word alfie noakes splendidly jingoistic just what the doctor ordered blind faith in the natural order being maintained and spanking the Aussies once again and we were robbed in 91
i do share your optimism and living in NZ it is hard work countering all the hyperbole surrounding the AB's or living rugby gods as all seem to think they are now this neck of the woods.
or only error is the score you quoted 32-12 i beleive

  • 91.
  • At 12:02 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Jeremy wrote:

Poster 82 (Alfie),

I admire your confidence but find your take on who is under pressure somewhat comical. Remember, it is this very English side who risk being the players (first in history) who lose England their world title. Never been done before and I sure would not want to be part of the it 鈥 would you? Now 鈥 you tell me who is truly under pressure. Make no mistake 鈥 you do not want to be a member of the team that has to hand over their beloved title as world champion. You clearly do not understand the situation these English players are in. Australia has nothing to lose. Historically Australia has dominated England in sport 鈥 it鈥檚 their birthright. Respect is something you must earn 鈥 lets see if England has earned that come Saturday.

  • 92.
  • At 12:06 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • tony d wrote:

If you want England to keep it tight - presumably meaning you heave your best scrummaging tight five - then you do not play Vickery as he is not our best scrummager, Stevens is.

If you want to play defensively against one of the better attacking units you need a hefty No 8 and two good mobile tacling flankers i.e. Moody / Worsley and NOT Corry.

Presumably the runners we will bring on later should include Tait as personally I cant what else he does.

  • 93.
  • At 12:07 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Jeremy wrote:

Poster 82 (Alfie),

I admire your confidence but find your take on who is under pressure somewhat comical. Remember, it is this very English side who risk being the players (first in history) who lose England their world title. Never been done before and I sure would not want to be part of it 鈥 would you? Now 鈥 you tell me who is truly under pressure. Make no mistake 鈥 you do not want to be a member of the team that has to hand over their beloved title as world champion. You clearly do not understand the situation these English players are in. Australia has nothing to lose. Historically Australia has dominated England in sport 鈥 it鈥檚 their birthright. Respect is something you must earn 鈥 lets see if England has earned that come Saturday.

  • 94.
  • At 12:15 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • tony d wrote:

If you want England to keep it tight - presumably meaning you heave your best scrummaging tight five - then you do not play Vickery as he is not our best scrummager, Stevens is.

If you want to play defensively against one of the better attacking units you need a hefty No 8 who doesnt go to ground and two good mobile tackling flankers i.e. Moody / Worsley and NOT Corry.

Presumably the runners we will bring on later should include Tait as personally I cant what else he does.

  • 95.
  • At 12:19 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Bruce wrote:

With Farrell out, the whole mid-field selection issue is once more open.

Options include Hipkiss and Lewsey with Tait onto the wing.

  • 96.
  • At 12:20 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Gareth Lumb wrote:

Never mind all the talk about England v Australia. How pleasing it is that the French plan to win the right to host the RWC by prostituting themselves out to Scotland and Wales has now backfired and lost them 'home' advantage against the All Blacks. 'Hard Cheese' I say!

  • 97.
  • At 12:20 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Wise old owl wrote:

I was just about to write that England will use Farrell to run at straight at the the Aussie, skinny, lightweight, weak tackling stand off(well all stand offs are)and he goes and pulls a calf muscle! That's my tactics up in the air, wonder if it is Brian's? Then again Farrell "injury" maybe all part of the master plan!!! We will see who the replacement it is. Hipkiss sticking to plan "A", Barckley switching to plan "B", unfortunately I don't think Brian has a plan "C".

  • 98.
  • At 12:22 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • David wrote:

I am sorry - but I just have to laugh about many of the comments made here. I suppose it should be very reassuring that we have so many experts (who must all have played and coached the game of rugby at a very high level) and that they are willing to share their expertise with us through this blog. Of course what these 'experts' don't see is what the coach sees on a day to day basis - who is outperforming who in training. Anybody who has coached sport at any level would know that Brian Ashton does not make selection decisions based only on match day performances. It would be great if the true England supporters could just focus on getting behind our team.

  • 99.
  • At 12:25 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Jez wrote:

I do wish Matt Dawson would stop rubbishing Andy Farrell. Faz is a super player who was hamstrung in the South Africa game by being given no quality ball due to the fact that his pack was under pressure at the breakdown. Andy brings an awful lot to the table, great defence, great kicking (which takes the pressure of Wilko) and the best delayed pass in world rugby (all codes). Having watched him play for Saracens last season you can see that he is a natural leader, with great vision and the ability to bring players into gaps created by his intelligent running. Of inside centres in world rugby at the moment perhaps only Yannick Jauzion of France has superior ability at taking on two defenders whilst passing to a colleague in space - give Faz the time and space and he will create tries for players.

  • 100.
  • At 12:27 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • David Hain wrote:

Looks like Farrell is out injured anyway now, never mind.

  • 101.
  • At 12:43 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • tony d wrote:

what plan........

  • 102.
  • At 12:43 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • chris watkins wrote:

IAN MACKO what on earth are you on about, rugby union and rugby league are 2 entirley different games and Matt Dawson has made the grade in union, has not played league nor has he even mentioned league or farrel's ability in league, but what he does mention is farrel's abbility so far in union which is dismal! Having played both coded myself to a fairly high standard as a back I will tell you it is easier to make the change to league from union then it is from union to league! you do not get as much time on the ball in union as you do in league (purley speaking as a back)

All you have to do is look at the converts over the years to see!

i.e. when union was amature all the players moved to league and the majority where major successes such as Davies, Bates, Gibbs, Quinell, Pearce and Offiah to mention a few. since union became profesional and there is more money then league a few have tried the switch but few have succeeded such as robinson = success, harris = failure, farrel = failure, chev walker = failure.

To me this says it all!

  • 103.
  • At 12:52 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Alan Taylor wrote:

I don't think Hipkiss is an option to replace Farrel he is an outside centre its either Barkley or Catt

  • 104.
  • At 12:54 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Shez Sheridan wrote:

The England team does not look too bad.
With Farrell out i would get hipkiss in (Catt too old now), he is a genuine centre, so worth a game (although its a big game).

Corry just should not be playing, wake up to this old slow man, who lacks class. How Tom Rees isnt in the back row i just cant understand. A quick and light back row would work wonders against this Aussie team (Moddy, Easter, Rees).

As it is even with my changes i expect us to lose about 30-15, we are just not good enough.
On the optomistic side, if we play a good first 20mins and maybe get a 6-0 lead, we might give the aussies the jitters and they could lose the game that way, but we will struggle to win it on our own, aussies need to make mistakes.

Good luck england, i'll be praying for the win or at the very least a competitive loss. This will enable us to leave the tournament with a platform to build on.

  • 105.
  • At 01:00 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Will wrote:

As an Aussie rugby tragic, I have a tremendous amount of respect for the 2003 English team. Everyone keeps talking about Wilkinson but for mine it was the pack, especially Johnson & Dalaglio, that were the driving force behind the win.
Having said that, I don't think England's management are showing any direction in how they want to play the game in this RWC.
IMO, you either play direct or you don't. You cant hedge your bets. Tindall on one leg is the best centre in England (at least to combat Mortlock) and to combat Giteau a solid AND Nimble centre in the mould of Darcy, O'Driscol, Mauger, or De Villiers in needed. Farell on Giteau is ridiculous thinking.
Finally you cannot go into a game against NZ, SA or AUS without a genuine 7. Its that simple.

  • 106.
  • At 01:12 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • daz whites wrote:

i have nothing against andy farell .but in my opinion he is a duck out of water in union, he is 2 big to play centre , no speed, cant kick fast enough, doesnt get involved, never see him tackle, stands out like a sore thumb, i think he needs to learn the game before being granted international caps he simply isnt good enough .

  • 107.
  • At 01:20 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • I.M.Fedupwivit wrote:

I dont think inside centre is a very easy position for anyone in the current England side. JW is not the player he was I think most people would agree. He spent a lot of time trying to perfect a running style ala Jason R which of course has not really worked. Therefore after his little shuffle the ball is transferred to 12 with no space whatsoever to work with. He needs to go back to running more directly himself to commit defenders more and create space outside. I would now play Barkley at 10 and JW at 12 but I dont expect our 'visionary' coach will. As for Tait, no more a centre than the man in the moon wing or nowhere I'm afraid.

  • 108.
  • At 01:23 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • M Brown wrote:

Is John O'Neil from Queensland? They're all from Queen's land if you think about it. It still belongs to the Queen.

  • 109.
  • At 01:45 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Bruce wrote:

Re 104

I don't think Catt or Barkley are specialist inside centres either.

(Allen and Hipkiss and Hipkiss and Tait might go well as a partnerships in the 6 Nations).

As I see it, it's a matter of both mid-field backs chosen containing Mortlock (to prevent him setting away the wingers or FB) with the loose forward cover defence focused on Gitteau.

Hipkiss and Lewsey have the size to do this in this game. Though Hipkiss and Tait might offer more when in possession.

The inside centre would still have to watch the blind-side wing and remain in the inside place if his loose forwards were tied up in earlier sets.

Worsley and Moody offer the better loose forwards to achieve this goal though (and by the time the game opens up, this needs to be in place).

  • 110.
  • At 01:52 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • wrote:

So-- it's all about the pack???

Come on ENGLAND and lets have a bit of flair-- like Michelak's punts for wingers to run onto. Go England

  • 111.
  • At 02:14 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • bob wrote:

With Farrell out (nightmare!)it has to be Catt at inside, I'm afraid. He, like Farrell, can take the pressure off Wilkinson and has a useful boot. Yes, I know he was useless in the SAf game but, frankly, the whole team were and a) he was out of position and b) he never got quick ball. Now that we have Gommersall hassling the forwards for quick ball and Wilkinson orchestrating the backs, it will give Catt the chance to shine... he is an excellent distributer, the equal of Farrell, and he might just create some space. And he's been there before (WC 2003).The problem is his defence (don't mention Lomu) but is Barkley any better?

But, defensively we are likely to be suspect in the centres. Only way around this is to draft in Lewsey but I think this has too many risks attached....we're already playing with a team that only marginally resembles that which built momentum over the last 2 games and we already have 2 (or 3) out of position.

As to the front row, I just hope thread 80 is correct in his analysis. Given the back row is sooooo lumbering (Moody excepted)and that the breakdown is where most of our problems have stemmed from, we really need Chuter for his speed in second/third + phase play.

I'll be there screaming my head off but it will be the Aussies by 20+.

  • 112.
  • At 02:37 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • James wrote:

Everyone seems to have forgotten that he could play Toby Flood at 12 - he's familiar with playing with both Wilkinson and Tait and he punches his weight defensively as well. Hipkiss is outside centre or nowhere - his passing isn't good enough to play at 12.

  • 113.
  • At 02:38 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • alfie noakes the 2nd. wrote:

91- patrick,

sorry you are correct, 31-12 it is.

92- jeremy,

i look forward to reading your posts on Saturday from about 5.00pm. You'll be the only aussie writing about the game. Good luck mate.

  • 114.
  • At 02:46 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • El Nino wrote:

As a fan of both codes of rugby (possibly slightly favouring league!) I'd like to throw in my 2 cents on the Farrell debate.

I've questioned right from the start the RFU (and Saracens) decision to invest so heavily in him. There's no doubt that after breaking into the Wigan (and GB) team at an early age, Farrell quickly established himself as a world class operator and remained so for a number of years.

I thought that toward the end of his league career, he'd almost become injury prone and these injuries had taken there toll quite badly. He lost a couple of yards of pace and beause of this, he was even appearing for Wigan in the front row.

Farrell at 27 or younger would have been a brilliant acquistion. A world class player with time on his side to learn his new trade.

The reality is that the RFU signed an ageing, fading & injury prone player, with very little time to adapt to union.

It goes without saying that his car accident and indecision over his position haven't helped matters.

  • 115.
  • At 02:47 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Ross wrote:

Generally you need a settled, confident side to have any chance against the aussies. Australia will win this game by 20/25 points.

  • 116.
  • At 04:07 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • daz whites wrote:

i agree with ross ........at this moment in time i think the present england team will get walloped come saturday

  • 117.
  • At 04:32 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • lorraine wrote:

Well, personally I can not see England beating the Aussies on Saturday but hopefully it will be a good game. I have been reading some of the comments posted and was suprised to see so many english whinging about the Aussies and the Australian press etc. If this seems to be a problem maybe you should look at going back to you own country and you will soon see the media and the people are no better. Enjoy the lifestyle that Australia has so kindly offered you and please stop being so disrespectful.

  • 118.
  • At 06:19 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • ian macko wrote:

Comment 76,Andy Lipscome,of course my comment has substance.Andy Farrell has played Rugby at a far superior level all of his career,just because all of these 'Experts'Dawson,Barnes,Guscott,Carling,Healey and Robertson who has done nothing but undermine his ability shows you they do not know what it takes to be a professional Rugby player.Your game is played at an Amateur level,stop,start,Kick this and that.Farrell has come down to this level.

  • 119.
  • At 06:44 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • john wrote:

I'm a Scot living in Melbourne and I have to say I love the Aussie attitude to sport. They are real winners, and even when they don't win they dust themselves down and get on with the business of becoming the best in the future. I'm looking forward to the game against the 'poms', there's a healthy respect here for the England team, but the Aussies wouldn't be the Aussies if they didn't have that cocky belief in themselves. For the good of rugby played in an entertaining way I hope they win.

  • 120.
  • At 12:18 AM on 05 Oct 2007,
  • wrote:

Dear Mr Brown. A brief history lesson. In 1901 Australia chose to become a fedral nation. It means a lot of things but mostly it means that our land is ours. It does not belong to the Queen. And despite the way some (public school?) misguided, sentimental English boys carry on, we are no longer a colony. We are a very succesfull, wealthy nation. Made up of people who have come from all around the world to live here. And tomorrow, once again, we will beat England on the sporting field.

So grab yourself a warm pint of lager, some soggy chips and enjoy the spectacal. You may even decide to reminisce about how good it felt four years ago when you did win. And in that moment, you will know what it feels like to be Australian.

And for the record, O'Niel is a Southernner.

  • 121.
  • At 02:51 AM on 05 Oct 2007,
  • JonBoy wrote:

Somehow I don鈥檛 think we鈥檒l be able to bully the wallabies 鈥 the all blacks had them on the ropes in their tri-nations game and couldn鈥檛 finish them off 鈥 the ozzies came back and made them pay!!

Mortlock will carve us up!! I鈥檝e been talking to kiwis and asking them which other players in world rugby would they like to see in their first 15 and the only name that ever came up was Mortlock!! He鈥檚 going to kill our midfield 鈥 especially without Farrell鈥檚 bulk.

Our forward pack are sooooo one dimensional 鈥 we need more mobile forwards! This is something we鈥檝e got to address starting at school level. The southern hemisphere teams are light years ahead of us using their back row forwards as attacking weapons not just big lumps in defence like we do! Sorry boys 鈥 but the truth hurts!

We鈥檒l see and I鈥檇 love to be proved wrong come Saturday!!!

  • 122.
  • At 12:22 PM on 05 Oct 2007,
  • daws wrote:

I think our game plan is going to have to be simplistic, but executed with as much passion and ferocity as we can muster if we're going to win this game.

It looks like we're going for them at scrum time, and i still think we have the potential to dominate this area, however it won't count for much unless our kicking game improves, and that is one thing Farrell would have offered had he been playing, as well as giving Giteau something large to have running at his inside shoulder.

We need to forget about too much width, we know they are strong out wide, let's attack through 10 (barnes and giteau not the largest) and dominate set piece if we can. We must also defend like animals against mortlock (ie in packs)

  • 123.
  • At 05:35 PM on 06 Oct 2007,
  • paulcedron wrote:

As an Argie i want to say congratulations England. You have demonstrated nobody is the winner before playing the match.

The 大象传媒 is not responsible for the content of external internet sites