England v Australia, 7 Nov ‘09
England fell at the first hurdle of their 2009 international season, against Australia at Twickenham today.
Australia had a poor Tri-Nations series this year, losing five out of six games, leading many to speculate that the game was England’s before it even started. The mistake here is a failure to factor in the abilities of the English side.
The team in gold today may have been a shadow of the Australian teams of previous years but, even with a lot of new faces, they were still far more proficient than the men in white.
As an England supporter I have suffered through six years, since the 2003 World Cup, of largely aimless performances. All sides suffer their poor periods so losses can be forgiven but it is necessary to see a trend of improvements in performance, technique, tactics and philosophy. England have failed, repeatedly, to achieve any of this.
After the game, co-commentator Stuart Barnes immediately started talking about the changes he would make in the pack. Obviously, Stuart was a back. England’s forwards won plenty of good possession, particularly in the first half, but the team could manage only nine points, from a dropped goal and two penalty goals. No, the problem was not in the forwards, Stuart, it was the backs who failed.
The English have never been known for exciting, incisive back play. That’s what the Welsh, French, Southern Hemisphere and, latterly, the Irish teams are good at. England do big, strong, fearsome forwards. There is plenty of desire – evidenced by the unexpected run in the 2007 World Cup – but that’s not enough any more. Long gone are the days when passionate 10-man rugby could dominate.
England can play a good 15-man game. Sir Clive Woodward struggled for years to change the culture of forward dominated thinking, eventually succeeding (to some extent at least) and winning the World Cup. He and his team were far from perfect but were light years ahead of what we’ve seen since.
Today echoed so many England performances of recent years. Possession was slow and the backs were able to do little more than charge at their opposite numbers. Mental agility was completely lacking, a try never seemed likely and a slightly sharper Australian team would have easily run in two or three more tries.
It wasn’t all bad. Wilkinson played well on his return to the fold – it’s ironic that he was fit when so many in the squad were not – and Moody stood out. Discipline was excellent, and for a short spell in the second half England managed to pick up the pace to an acceptable level for test rugby.
I have to wonder, however, if there is something wrong with the DNA of English rugby? Why is it so resistant to clever, creative back play? I don’t know the answer, and on the evidence of today (and the last year), neither does Martin Johnson.
My cat Rosie has started playing rugby with a dinky little rugby ball.
We’re waiting for the call…
It’s OK Al, you’re naturalised now. Become an Ireland fan and ease that pain away!
BTW, for what it’s worth I thought it was England’s coaching that was at fault, not the players. When they attacked they made good ground but the SH would then pick up a the base of the ruck and hurl the ball back 5 or 10 metres. The Aussie defensive line would then step up 5 metres and England would have to win that territory for a 2nd time. That was the game plan. That’s down to Johnson, you can tell he thinks backs are irrelevant.
@Profoundly Superficial: That call may come sooner rather than later, judging by the ever-growing list of injuries!
@Derek: Hmm…think I’ll always be a blow-in as far as people round here are concerned
I agreed though, it’s down to the coaching. There are more players in England than any other country and some of them are not injured! There is plenty of talent and potential so we have to assume that the planning and preparation was at fault, both in the analysis of the likely Aussie gameplan and the preparation of some moves. As you say, it doesn’t reflect well on Johnson and his staff.