England Versus Australia 18th November 2017 3pm k.o.

First topic message reminder :

A resurgent Wallabies arrive in town with a great opportunity to halt their run of defeats to England. They are in much better current form and are looking sharp. EJs is trying to test out a few new players and rotate his Lions with a long term RWC view. He has said he will take the odd defeat along the way if it helps develop the side longer term. I think this Sat could be one of those defeats.

I do agree with seeing how some different players cope and do not disagree with his approach. Therefore, we need to see Williams, George, Watson (at 15) all start. If Teo was fit I would also go Farrell at 10 and Teo at 12 with Slade at 13 (deserves 1 more go despite being poor on Sat).  

Once these AIs are over then I think the time for experimenting is done and we then play each match as if it is our last. This will enable the combinations to bed in and be battle hardened for RWC 2019.

Team: Watson, May, Joseph, Farrell, Daly; Ford, Youngs; M Vunipola, Hartley, Cole; Launchbury, Lawes; Robshaw, Underhill, Hughes.

Replacements: George, Marler, Williams, Itoje, Simmonds, Care, Slade, Rokoduguni.



Australia: 15 Kurtley Beale, 14 Marika Koroibete, 13 Tevita Kuridrani, 12 Samu Kerevi, 11 Reece Hodge, 10 Bernard Foley, 9 Will Genia; 1 Scott Sio, 2 Tatafu Polota-Nau, 3 Sekope Kepu, 4 Rob Simmons, 5 Adam Coleman, 6 Ned Hanigan, 7 Michael Hooper, 8 Sean McMahon
Replacements: 16 Stephen Moore, 17 Tom Robertson, 18 Allan Alaalatoa, 19 Matt Philip, 20 Ben McCalman, 21 Lopeti Timani, 22 Nick Phipps, 23 Kurtley Beale, 24 Henry Speight*

*one to be omitted

GeordieFalcon wrote:Hood
Underhill is a powerhouse who should come good, Haskell played his best three games for England in oz that tour. Underhill needs time.  He carried twice in this game...twice more than last week.

Personally I think Curry is the man!

We still have to have an eye on the future. That plus there is always more danger of injuries. Underhill is very much one for the future

cascough wrote:

Heaf wrote:Not saying it was lucky - just makes it look more one-sided than it was ...

Completely disagree. England were excellent value for the scoreline today, similarly Aus discipline poor throughout and their execution poor in key moments.

As for Australia's "tries" today... the first, hooper was a mile offside from the kick through, Koroibete never touched it so the bounce of a ball is never going to magic hooper back onside. Absolute non issue, especially since Robshaw held him up anyway (ref's question meant try was never going to be awarded)

The second, poor running and a clear obstruction from moore. Robshaw has to change his line to avoid Moore as clearly shown on the replay from behind. Clumsy from Australia. Overall Australia struggled today. Deserved nothing.

England on the other hand could afford to effectively waste 2 sin bin periods and still be 7 points ahead on 70+ minutes. That's before you give England the credit (that they deserve) for being ridiculously clinical in the last 10 mins.

On another note, Robshaw was excellent today and I really don't think we have another backrow like him. His defence on the tryline was exceptional, and his performance was summed up by him superbly mopping up a loose ball, making a mistake and offloading to Kurindrani, and then immediately rectifying that with a turnover. The guy just does not quit.

Fair enough - I think I was just trying to spare the feelings of our Aussie friends - what was I thinking

who was the really annoying woman commentator who Brian was doing his best to ignore who described a throw in to the lineout as a put in and that sliding over the line was like the mud slide we all wanted to have as a kid...I mean WTAF? Can it be that we now have to tolerate ill informed amateurs calling the top level of the sport as well?

On another note, Robshaw was excellent today and I really don't think we have another backrow like him. His defence on the tryline was exceptional, and his performance was summed up by him superbly mopping up a loose ball, making a mistake and offloading to Kurindrani, and then immediately rectifying that with a turnover. The guy just does not quit

Immensley effective.


Everything he does seems to be in slow mo (although that could be the Punk IPA) bit like Deano of old he's just 'there'.

Reading this thread I was a little surprised at the number of posters who felt before the game that Australia were favorites. I didn't see the Argentina game ; but even if England were a bit underwhelming in it surely the recent string of successive wins should have inspired more faith that they could lift their game as required ?
Certainly Australia have improved : the development of their game through the three matches against NZ made that obvious. But even so...perhaps after four wins on the trot for the Old Enemy there was just a feeling they were "due" ?

I thought they continued to show that improvement , to be honest : never mind the so-called marginal decisions - all actually correct , as far as I could see ; they created several chances which they were unable to finish ...couple of forward passes , couple of dropped balls (especially the one which led directly to an England try at the other end) so you could argue that with a bit of luck they might have been a lot closer in the last few minutes.
Mind you ; England could also point to a couple of missed opportunities ...Itoje failing to pass to May , Ford inexplicably electing to try a speculative drop goal with Australia a man down and under pressure.
I actually thought Australia played their best while down a man - or two. Defended well enough and even threatened in attack ; was a gutsy effort. But even had that score leveling try stood I'd have fancied England's replacements to overwhelm a team that must surely have been more than usually fatigued from defending without their full complement ...no surprise when the late points came with a rush.

30-6 might have somewhat exaggerated the gap between the teams. But England were good value for that win. And I'm not sure they were at their best yet either so might be some good times to come : what a pity they aren't scheduled to face NZ in the next few weeks ...

I don't understand what the Aussies were complaining about, really. It is an absolute sh!tter when so many calls go against you, but looking at each one individually, were any of them really unfair? Hooper of all people should have known to keep his head down after the first captain's warning.

If the rumours are true about Shields, he'll be a step up on Robshaw.

6. Shields
7. Underhill
8. Vuinipola

Is a seriously powerful backrow. Combine that with Launchbury and Itoje in the engine room and we're getting a beastly pack together.

He's smaller than robshaw isn't he?

I just don't like Cheikas constant whining that his team is hard done by and worry it will rub off on the players. They looked so frustrated and think it affected there thinking.

Wiki have them:

Shields - 6'4" - 111kg
Robshaw - 6'2" - 102kg

Shields is a seriously powerful guy, typical 6 in the Kaino mould. Always wondered why he'd never picked up a cap.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:If the rumours are true about Shields, he'll be a step up on Robshaw.

6. Shields
7. Underhill
8. Vuinipola

Is a seriously powerful backrow. Combine that with Launchbury and Itoje in the engine room and we're getting a beastly pack together.

Bigger stronger faster doesn't mean smarter, more skilled, tougher or having the engine to put in a performance over 80 minutes. So if he is an improvement, good, but I will believe it when I see it.

I wonder if you would be thinking the same way had Shields come up through, say, the French system. It is all too easy to think New Zealand therefore must be good. 'Good' and 'NZ rugby player' do often go together but it is not a given.

I see your point and of course bigger/more physical doesn't mean better. I've been watching Shields since he broke through in Super rugby and I think he's a cracking player. I can see him being a step up on Robshaw if he does indeed want to play for England.

I haven't seen any EQ player make a case to replace Robshaw at 6. There isn't anyone better. As said, explosive, powerful...meh. Means nothing if you can't keep it up. Robshaw has a huge engine and never lets up (sure I remember reading that he has some insane V02 max).

Ditto Brown tbh. When we've got EQ players playing 15 better than the incumbent, let's talk about making changes.

Guess it's good to be in a position where most of the chat is about replacing players that don't need to be replaced in a winning team....rather than bickering about who is to blame :P

mid_gen wrote:I haven't seen any EQ player make a case to replace Robshaw at 6. There isn't anyone better. As said, explosive, powerful...meh. Means nothing if you can't keep it up. Robshaw has a huge engine and never lets up (sure I remember reading that he has some insane V02 max).

Ditto Brown tbh. When we've got EQ players playing 15 better than the incumbent, let's talk about making changes.

Guess it's good to be in a position where most of the chat is about replacing players that don't need to be replaced in a winning team....rather than bickering about who is to blame :P

Absolutely. In this vein I am all for the debate about Shields vs Robshaw. I know where my money is but we need to keep on having these discussions to move forward (just, you know, not in the Hartley vs George way....)

The man still needs to get here and prove that he's the real deal in the AP before we really start talking though. Thinking about this the name Matt Symons comes to mind.

I never got the hype on Symons tbh.

I've been saying for years that we need better than Robshaw and previously Haskell to get to the next level. It looks like Haskell is being phased out, it could soon be Robshaw's turn.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I never got the hype on Symons tbh.

I've been saying for years that we need better than Robshaw and previously Haskell to get to the next level. It looks like Haskell is being phased out, it could soon be Robshaw's turn.

He isn't going to last forever. I wouldn't be surprised if he was done after the next RWC. It isn't difficult to find players who do more eye catching stuff, but we are a much better team for having him there

lostinwales wrote:

mid_gen wrote:I haven't seen any EQ player make a case to replace Robshaw at 6. There isn't anyone better. As said, explosive, powerful...meh. Means nothing if you can't keep it up. Robshaw has a huge engine and never lets up (sure I remember reading that he has some insane V02 max).

Ditto Brown tbh. When we've got EQ players playing 15 better than the incumbent, let's talk about making changes.

Guess it's good to be in a position where most of the chat is about replacing players that don't need to be replaced in a winning team....rather than bickering about who is to blame :P

Absolutely. In this vein I am all for the debate about Shields vs Robshaw. I know where my money is but we need to keep on having these discussions to move forward (just, you know, not in the Hartley vs George way....)

The man still needs to get here and prove that he's the real deal in the AP before we really start talking though. Thinking about this the name Matt Symons comes to mind.

I think if Shields is replacing anyone it'll be Underhill. I really don't see what Underhill has done to this point to be such a favoured choice. I know we need to build for the future but he's about 16 stone, is worse on the deck than the Curry's by the looks of it, not an especially powerful carrier etc. etc. To geode's point, yes he may well develop to be a good carrier, but Haskell has about 2 stone on him. I think there are a lot of questions yet to be answered and personally I'd be looking to determine them from his starting on the bench.

I thoughts on the match were that it was very entertaining.  England certainly got the bounce of the ball but none of the decisions seem wrong only marginal in some cases.  The score line totally flattered England but Jones seem to bring England luck.

I thought Robshaw played well, and it also showed that Itoje is good.  He made a real impact, perhaps having three locks does work for England.  In the backs I liked May.  He may have had a few tricky moments but perhaps a run of games will help.  I like the idea of a pacey back three.

Daley is a very good footballer but I am sure about him being a wing?

All in all an interesting match.

Being a bit "Old School" I was very disappointed in a few elements of this match. naturally it was horrible weather but it shouldn't excuse a few things. Robshaw's late hit on Beale was inexcusable and could have been a yellow. However, the constant arrogance and whingeing of Hooper left a bad taste in the mouth. If you don't like the referee, keep it to yourself and moan in the clubhouse after the game. He's a fantastic player, and really plays close to the edge of the law, but it's no surprise that he's one of the most carded players in world rugby. I wonder if any of those yellows are for dissent?

There's work to do for England, but the match was exciting and full of see-saw action. Australia probably thought that the world was against them with the TMO-ing, but looking at each of the events on their own merits, the TMO made the right decision each time. That's what they are there for. Sometimes you won't get the rub of the green, sometimes you will. England have showed how much they've come on and will put pressure on for 80 solid minutes. We're building a very good squad with a number of players pushing each other for positions; I expect a very different team next week, which will also be rather effective.

England followed the pattern of the last 21 games (excepting the 20th), they pressured and harried for 60 minutes, ran the other team ragged and then brought on the players that can have a real impact over 20 minutes and exploited the tired defence. Nothing new, EJ has done that from the start. The reason other teams cannot do it; England simply have so much depth in nearly every position, they can play 60 minutes of highly attritional rugby wearing the other teams out and then bring on players with arguably a higher attacking skill set for the last twenty. Danny Care is the perfect example, his box kicking game and possibly passing is not as good as Youngs, but his sniping and non tactical kicking into space behind a tired defence is far better. Likewise Teo when fit, he adds another skill set not there with the starting line up, no matter who you sub, 10, 12 or 13.

With the exception of NZ, nobody else has the squad to do this and without weakening your starting 15, I am not sure how you counter it.

I actually thought Itoje had one of his worst games in an England shirt. He was good in the lineout but his decision making elsewhere was poor. Going for the line himself with May outside him, knocking the ball out of Genia's hands (could have been a yellow on another day). He looked like a man trying a little too hard.

Sgt, I get that you have a downer on Robshaw, but I don't think Eddie will be getting rid of him anytime soon. It's worth looking at the post match interview. He's asked about the disallowed try that Chris almost stopped, and responds with a grin "It's always Chris."

Yesterday was a good example of why coaches value Robshaw. It was one of those days where he turned up time and again just when England needed something to happen or someone to cover. It's worth tracking him through the game. Big carrying is one thing, but someone who can respond to the game and do what is most needed is a much rarer skill, and I have yet to see any back row contender who is better at it than Robshaw.

I don't have a downer, I just rate him very highly, never have. I just think hes highly average and I would take most other national flankers over him.

Robshaw is the 1st name on the team sheet for me (& Eddie), it's the other side of the scrum that needs work. Underhill has to show that he's not just another Worsley or Lydiate - still early days yet for him tho. And the bench has been turned around since Lancaster's days - they can actually win games rather than just try to hang on.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I don't have a downer, I just rate him very highly, never have. I just think hes highly average and I would take most other national flankers over him.

You've made that very clear. It's also clear that a lot of pundits (including one E. Jones, late of JRU) and Warren Gatland don't rate him.

I'm asking you to consider that you might be wrong, and that maybe there's a reason he's never been dropped by anyone who's actually coached him, including one E. Jones, now of this parish. It took actually working with him to turn Eddie's opinion around, but he has been selected whenever he's been fit. It's not as if he hasn't had plenty of opportunity to try out other players. He could have tried Wilson, Armand, Wray, stuck with Itoje or Lawes at 6 or any one of a range of options, but he hasn't.

Haskell has been dropped partly because his foot problems are making it hard for him to keep up with the demands Eddie places on him, and partly because Eddie made it clear from the outset that Haskell wasn't the type of player he wanted in that role long term.

Given that Eddie has to develop a couple of tyro 7s and Hughes in the next two years, I also can't see him voluntarily giving up a backrower who has a ton of experience and is also good at covering for other players' weaknesses and mistakes.

A good game yesterday and a good win for England. I just wonder if D Care might be better starting the game rather than off the bench. he seem too liven the game up passes the ball quick at the break down than young does.

I don't think I'm wrong, anymore than you aren't. It's an opinion, maybe hes the best of an average bunch, doesnt mean he isn't average.

Hood83 wrote:
I think if Shields is replacing anyone it'll be Underhill. I really don't see what Underhill has done to this point to be such a favoured choice. I know we need to build for the future but he's about 16 stone, is worse on the deck than the Curry's by the looks of it, not an especially powerful carrier etc. etc. To geode's point, yes he may well develop to be a good carrier, but Haskell has about 2 stone on him. I think there are a lot of questions yet to be answered and personally I'd be looking to determine them from his starting on the bench.

A few points, he may only be shade over 16 stone but he's very solid and mobile, definitely punches above his weight thanks to his technique and you have to consider who he's replaced and the role Jones has given to the openside flanker. Last week against Argentina he didn't give up a single metre of territory and the ability to put the offensive team on the back foot seems to be what Jones is looking for and it was the exact role that Haskell was doing so well until his injury.

majesticimperialman wrote:A good game yesterday and a good win for England. I just wonder if D Care might be better starting the game rather than off the bench. he seem too liven the game up passes the ball quick at the break down than young does.

Isn't this another version of the "George should start" debate?

In the modern game two hookers are going to play and two scrum halves are going to play. Therefore the question is not who is best but which one is best suited to the tighter starting game and which the looser finish. I think Eddie Jones has it right.

Exiledinborders wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:A good game yesterday and a good win for England. I just wonder if D Care might be better starting the game rather than off the bench. he seem too liven the game up passes the ball quick at the break down than young does.

Isn't this another version of the "George should start" debate?

In the modern game two hookers are going to play and two scrum halves are going to play.  Therefore the question is not who is best but which one is best suited to the tighter starting game and which the looser finish. I think Eddie Jones has it right.

The proof has been eaten with the pudding 21 out of 22 ain't bad

I think Care loses something when he starts. His kicking is more exposed and he struggles to find the space that he gets later in the game.

Let Young’s do the hard work then jog on and pinch the lime light at the end.

LionsV2 wrote:

Hood83 wrote:
I think if Shields is replacing anyone it'll be Underhill. I really don't see what Underhill has done to this point to be such a favoured choice. I know we need to build for the future but he's about 16 stone, is worse on the deck than the Curry's by the looks of it, not an especially powerful carrier etc. etc. To geode's point, yes he may well develop to be a good carrier, but Haskell has about 2 stone on him. I think there are a lot of questions yet to be answered and personally I'd be looking to determine them from his starting on the bench.

A few points, he may only be shade over 16 stone but he's very solid and mobile, definitely punches above his weight thanks to his technique and you have to consider who he's replaced and the role Jones has given to the openside flanker. Last week against Argentina he didn't give up a single metre of territory and the ability to put the offensive team on the back foot seems to be what Jones is looking for and it was the exact role that Haskell was doing so well until his injury.

Is there any evidence he plans to play for England?

So far all we know is that he plans to play in England next year and on learning this New Zealand withdrew their invitation to play for them. He might well plan to play for Wasps for a couple of years and return to New Zealand. Who knows?

Exiledinborders wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:

Hood83 wrote:
I think if Shields is replacing anyone it'll be Underhill. I really don't see what Underhill has done to this point to be such a favoured choice. I know we need to build for the future but he's about 16 stone, is worse on the deck than the Curry's by the looks of it, not an especially powerful carrier etc. etc. To geode's point, yes he may well develop to be a good carrier, but Haskell has about 2 stone on him. I think there are a lot of questions yet to be answered and personally I'd be looking to determine them from his starting on the bench.

A few points, he may only be shade over 16 stone but he's very solid and mobile, definitely punches above his weight thanks to his technique and you have to consider who he's replaced and the role Jones has given to the openside flanker. Last week against Argentina he didn't give up a single metre of territory and the ability to put the offensive team on the back foot seems to be what Jones is looking for and it was the exact role that Haskell was doing so well until his injury.

Is there any evidence he plans to play for England?

So far all we know is that he plans to play in England next year and on learning this New Zealand withdrew their invitation to play for them. He might well plan to play for Wasps for a couple of years and return to New Zealand. Who knows?

Not that I'd trust the torygraph these days (Never liked the political bias but it used to be a great newspaper) but they are pushing the headline 'All Blacks fury as Brad Shields defects to England'. The New Zealand Herald is also pushing the idea he may challenge for Robshaw's place.

Practically I don't know if he will be here long enough to make the RWC squad. He's going to have to be ripping up trees from day one. I also wonder what this means for Haskell's future as I would assume they are going to be in direct competition for a place. If he's good enough there may well be a chance post RWC though.

For me it's not Robshaws side its the other side of the flank that is the issue.

I still haven't seen anything to tell me Underhill is the man for the 7 shirt. Certainly not ahead if either Curry!
Obviously he's in there for his power and tackling but I didn't see much enforcing of that power v Argentina.

GeordieFalcon wrote:For me it's not Robshaws side its the other side of the flank that is the issue.

I still haven't seen anything to tell me Underhill is the man for the 7 shirt. Certainly not ahead if either Curry!
Obviously he's in there for his power and tackling but I didn't see much enforcing of that power v Argentina.

Underhill might not make it as a Test player if he keeps smashing his body up in tackles. I've seen a few people question hsi technique, which might make him a regular visitor to the HIA room.

Shields is a 6/8 rather than a 7, I think he'll be in for Robshaw's spot.

nathan wrote:I just don't like Cheikas constant whining that his team is hard done by and worry it will rub off on the players. They looked so frustrated and think it affected there thinking.

Turning into the Australian Steve Diamond.

GeordieFalcon wrote:For me it's not Robshaws side its the other side of the flank that is the issue.

I still haven't seen anything to tell me Underhill is the man for the 7 shirt. Certainly not ahead if either Curry!
Obviously he's in there for his power and tackling but I didn't see much enforcing of that power v Argentina.

A little harsh on Underhill GF, the lad is only just gone 21 and has 3 caps!

I see your point on Curry but it needs context. Curry played against a not great Argentina side, on hard pitch, in great weather. It was a real free flowing game that seems to suit him as he's got a quick brain and has pace, he seems a good linking 7.

I'm not so sure Curry would be having the same effect in Nov(in pretty awful conditions), in an arm wrestle against a hardened Aus outfit.

I think it'll be good to re-evaluate Underhill after 10/15 caps, he looks like he has bags of potential imo.

I asked the question why do people love Launchbury so much - the answer is workrate. He had a high workrate and he's in his element when you have two other 2nd rowers to do the work in the lineout.

England are in a situation where they had 3 very hardworking locks on the pitch when Underhill got injured.

The question now I guess is the England pack better with 3 2nd rowers rather than a 7?


Very uncharacteristic of Itoje not to pass the ball in an opportune moment like that but then again the ball was being split a lot....


Scoreline did flatter England, fine margins, fortunate bounces of the ball but it's another win.

A win is a win seems to be the mantra at the moment.


Will be interesting to see what Jones does for the Samoa game though I can imagine his decisions will frustate as usual.

Very magnanimous.

beshocked wrote:The question now I guess is the England pack better with 3 2nd rowers rather than a 7?

100%. We don't even contest the breakdown and look how solid our defence was even without Underhill.

Whereas just look at what Itoje did in the lineout.

Rugby Fan wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:For me it's not Robshaws side its the other side of the flank that is the issue.

I still haven't seen anything to tell me Underhill is the man for the 7 shirt. Certainly not ahead if either Curry!
Obviously he's in there for his power and tackling but I didn't see much enforcing of that power v Argentina.

Underhill might not make it as a Test player if he keeps smashing his body up in tackles. I've seen a few people question hsi technique, which might make him a regular visitor to the HIA room.

Completely agree Rugby Fan - If he cant last the game or 60mins then he is going to be wasting a spot for a player that can. I am surprised that he hasn't managed to sort technique out so far. I know he is young but he's likely been playing since minis.

Will be interesting to see what Jones does for the Samoa game though I can imagine his decisions will frustate as usual.

Frustrate you perhaps, but we keep on winning.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:For me it's not Robshaws side its the other side of the flank that is the issue.

I still haven't seen anything to tell me Underhill is the man for the 7 shirt. Certainly not ahead if either Curry!
Obviously he's in there for his power and tackling but I didn't see much enforcing of that power v Argentina.

A little harsh on Underhill GF, the lad is only just gone 21 and has 3 caps!

I see your point on Curry but it needs context. Curry played against a not great Argentina side, on hard pitch, in great weather. It was a real free flowing game that seems to suit him as he's got a quick brain and has pace, he seems a good linking 7.

I'm not so sure Curry would be having the same effect in Nov(in pretty awful conditions), in an arm wrestle against a hardened Aus outfit.

I think it'll be good to re-evaluate Underhill after 10/15 caps, he looks like he has bags of potential imo.

Im not sure Sarge, the Currys are powerful lads as well and makes crunching tackles when needed. Ive seen them smash players. I think they'd have excelled in that game on Saturday...as their intelligence would have come to the fore but also their carrying and open play game would have been very useful.

I guess its a time will tell scenario.

Launchbury played well. I wouldn't have picked him as man of the match but he put in a good shift.

We don't know what would have happened if Itoje hadn't come on early for Underhill.

Also I thought May played to his primary strength which is running fast. Seems to be getting himself into ever more increasing try scoring positions which is good to see.

Itoje wasn't perfect - gave away stupid penalty and should have passed to May but I feel like he helps his fellow pack members and empowers someone like Launchbury just as Farrell empowers Ford. It makes players feel more comfortable when they've got someone to help share the load.


scottrf true - I think it's because Launchbury,Lawes and Itoje are all particularly athletic.

Certainly a contrast to when we had the likes of Borthwick,Parling and Palmer.

Appropriately it's Borthwick who is using his brain to help the locks. It's as if after his retirement he's decided to focus on that underrated part of his game - his knowledge of the game and I think England are seeing the benefits of this!

We should not underestimate Borthwick's influence and I am not just saying this because he's an ex Saracen - look at the development of our England locks! He's been Eddie Jones' right hand man but he's the quiet brain in the background.

I had the fortune to chat to Borthwick at Saracens and though he's perhaps not the most chatty man in the world he came across as a amiable chap and very knowledgeable.  Now of course that's perhaps obvious but I've seen the development of a lot of the Saracens coaches and players.

It's been fascinating.

Launchbury is not just a work rate beshocked. Get your blinkers off!

He is a heavy duty carrier in the crowd, he has good hands and tackles his socks off. You don't get a list of MOTM awrds by just being a workhorse!!

He also has consistency! That's a critical part of being a top player.

beshocked wrote:

A win is a win seems to be the mantra at the moment.

Arent you the one who rants on about teams winning....or are you showing double standards yet again...

The highlights didn't do justice to Launchbury tbf.

Geordiefalcon

Tackling and carrying into heavy traffic is part of a good workrate surely?

Winning ugly is fine as long as eventually you can put in a big performance vs a big team.

Fair play to England - got a good result vs Australia.

My point is let's not paper over the cracks - England are in a good position but still work to be done.

Where do you feel over the entire match england need to improve then? Pretty good performance I thought overall. Scrums maybe?

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon

Tackling and carrying into heavy traffic is part of a good workrate surely?

Winning ugly is fine as long as eventually you can put in a big performance vs a big team.

Fair play to England - got a good result vs Australia.

My point is let's not paper over the cracks - England are in a good position but still work to be done.

Ah I give up....