Twickenham 7th November 2009
A dominant second-half performance gave the Wallabies their win over England in a tense, hard- fought match. After struggling for possession in the early stages, via their shaky lineout and a mammoth penalty count, they reversed their recent poor second-half performances to score thirteen points to England’s nil, after the break.
Whilst this weakened England team are not currently at the top of world rankings, the Wallabies will nevertheless be heartened by a number of aspects of their game. The scrum remains strong and gave them a number of opportunities, not the least of which was the 58th minute penalty - against replacement prop, Duncan Bell – which gave them the lead for the first time. I’ve seen Bell a few times playing for Bath; he has trouble bending his knees, which is a giant problem for a tall prop. As a result, he spends a lot of time on the ground, not unlike the injured first choice Andrew Sheridan. Poor technique will never survive a stern test!
The Wallaby attack was a lot straighter. Giteau is still predominantly across the pitch, but, outside of him, Cooper and Ioane ran predominantly good lines. This helped enormously with an attack that frequently threatened the England defence. Two tries to nil was a reasonable result, but, with some more clinical finishing, they might just as well have had three more. Full credit, mind you, to some fantastic scrambling defence by England.
Quade Cooper can question defences. This can help make space for those outside him, more so if Matt Giteau can look for more second touches. This simple “natural loop”, as Mark Ella used to say, seems to have disappeared from his game. This new look Wallaby backline shows some promise, with potential threats from #9 through to #15.
The trick now is to put it all together so that the sum is greater than the parts. Attention to simple detail is necessary. Lines of run and of support are important. Alignment and urgent realignment are essential if the pressure on defences is to be maintained. Correct depth, and the ability to maintain that depth, is an area that needs attention. Too frequently, the outside player gets too flat, the pass subsequently goes behind him, and the momentum of the attack is lost. Finally, the attacking line must all move together and at pace, in order to put the defence on notice. This is impossible with one or more outside backs waiting in front of the attacking line for the ball to catch up with them. I have been known to ask the question, “Waiting for the bus?”
The Wallaby defence was excellent; however, all things are relative, and the England attack, whilst fundamentally sound, never asked difficult questions. Wilkinson remains a world-class player, Geraghty is clever and agile, there is good pace throughout, but nothing came together that looked anything like an “ensemble attack”.
On the minus side, our lineout struggled again and we simply cannot continue with it in this state. Palu must become a viable fourth option - although no one will be putting up their hand to lift him – because his impact in both the ball-carry and tackle seem indispensible to the shape of our game.
Our support play is way off the pace, whether it be at the tackle - how could Lewis Moody have been allowed to force the penalty, when Giteau carried so strongly to the gain line under England’s posts, in the first half? Or chasing the line-break - no-one could get in behind Ben Robinson after his 30-40 meter ball carry. He’s not Brian Habana after all! We got two players in behind Adam Ashley-Cooper to help drive him over the line for his match-sealing try, but this was the only such occasion in the match. We are much too slow in on the ball-carrier at the tackle!
Anyway, we badly needed to win a match and this, along with Scotland, were always must wins for the tour. It is a starting point and we can improve from here.
What then of England? They had a host of injuries to presumably first choice players. The front row was particularly weakened and it showed. It cost them clear points and some quality of possession, even if the ref was kind to them at times. Fix this and they’re a couple of rungs up the ladder immediately. The back-row was ok, with Lewis Moody outstanding – had England won the match, he would probably have been man-of-the-match. I could see a fit James Haskell adding some much needed x-factor here and Tom Croft can be outstanding, although not on this occasion.
England’s defence was strong and driving at times and their excellent scrambling back prevented at least two tries, but, when a difficult question was asked by Will Genia, with threats both inside him and out, they failed the exam. At this level, you’ve got to be better than this.
As I indicated earlier, the England attack has some potential, with pace, skill and size. Wilkinson showed some deft touches, and some power and aggression, and Geraghty was agile and willing. As with the Wallabies, some decent support play would be useful, but these days, players are too preoccupied with loading up for the next phase to worry about the current one. More’s the pity!
It was a good game, without being a great one. It was a reasonable launching pad, for both teams, for the rest of the autumn/spring tours (depending on the hemisphere in which you live). But each team will be looking for more – and soon!| ← The North versus the South | SOS for Dan Vickerman → |
|---|
2012