England vs Australia

[loudnconfident]

Slipper is one of the few Australian players i'm familiar with.

To give you a guide, that is a **wild** XXIII that Schmidt's just picked.

Nick Frost was in Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead.
Puja

Thx Puja for. a typically comprehensive update.

(IIRC Nick Frost sobered up and returned to fitness in The World's End)

[Puja]

Slipper is one of the few Australian players i'm familiar with.

To give you a guide, that is a **wild** XXIII that Schmidt's just picked.

Nick Frost was in Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead.
Puja

Thx Puja for. a typically comprehensive update.

(IIRC Nick Frost sobered up and returned to fitness in The World's End)

It looks like fun when Chat GPT gets common things confused and makes nonsensical statements, so I thought I'd try it. Never actually saw The World's End - is it worth my time?

Puja

[Cameo]

Skelton's a weird one. You'd think you would at least want that impact off the bench.

Kerevi I can get. He's a good player but hasn't been available and Paisami is also one of their better players. Importantly, he also seems smart, in a team that is prone to being a bit dim (in a rugby sense).

Suailili - Wow, huge call but fun. I think 13 is his obvious long term slot (physically at least) but it's not the way to ease someone in. I hope it pays off as he's worth watching. He is prone to a high tackle though (even by league standards).

Loloseo - Not that they have great alternatives, but I'm not convinced by him. Just a bit average. Prone to mistakes but doesn't do that much of note to make up for them. He has that (dare I say Farrell-esque) air of composure though. Looks calm while floating a penalty wide.

[Mellsblue]

He has that (dare I say Farrell-esque) air of composure though. Looks calm while floating a penalty wide.

[Beasties]

Oz team:

1. Angus Bell (33 Tests) – Hunters Hill Rugby

2. Matt Faessler (12 Tests) – USQ Saints

3. Taniela Tupou (56 Tests) – Brothers Rugby

4. Nick Frost (21 Tests) – Hornsby Lions

5. Jeremy Williams (8 Tests) – Wahroonga Tigers

6. Rob Valetini (48 Tests) – Harlequin Junior Rugby Club

7. Fraser McReight (22 Tests) – Albany Creek Brumbies

8. Harry Wilson (c) (19 Tests) – Gunnedah Red Devils

9. Jake Gordon (27 Tests) – Canterbury Juniors

10. Noah Lolesio (26 Tests) – Tuggeranong Vikings

11. Dylan Pietsch (4 Tests) – Leeton Phantoms

12. Len Ikitau (35 Tests) – Tuggeranong Vikings

13. Joseph-Aukuso Suaalii* – The Kings School

14. Andrew Kellaway (35 Tests) – Hunters Hill Rugby

15. Tom Wright (33 Tests) – Clovelly Eagles

Substitutes

16. Brandon Paenga-Amosa (16 Tests) – Southern Districts

17. James Slipper (140 Tests)– Bond Pirates

18. Allan Alaalatoa (76 Tests) – West Harbour Juniors

19. Lukhan Salakaia-Loto (37 Tests) - Randwick

20. Langi Gleeson (9 Tests) – Harbord Harlequins

21. Tate McDermott (37 Tests) – Flinders Rugby Club

22. Ben Donaldson (13 Tests) – Clovelly Eagles

23. Max Jorgensen (3 Tests) – Balmain Wolves

*denotes uncapped

Young James Slipper’s cap total always amuses me.

FTFY

[Puja]

Kerevi I can get. He's a good player but hasn't been available and Paisami is also one of their better players. Importantly, he also seems smart, in a team that is prone to being a bit dim (in a rugby sense).

Paisami's not available - do you mean Ikitau ro have you misread the teamsheet?

Puja

[Oakboy]

When we used to do player marking, I often suggested doing it in units. It seems to me that is not a bad way of assessing SB.

Front row - needs to take risks on younger options perhaps. 6.
Second row - can't do better apart from bench glitches. 9.
Back row - shambolic. 4.
Half backs - apart from picking the right starting 10, struggling. 5.
Centres - lining up Slade and Lawrence till somebody better comes along will do for now. 6.
Back Three - picking the best but might need to be ruthless if standards drop. 8.

Bench - farcical. 2.


Overall - 5/10. Results against top opposition poor. Performances not horrendous, arguably, but responsible for costly bench influence turning potential victories into defeats.

[Mellsblue]

It seems Kerevi isn’t fully fit (I’m assuming that’s what ‘isn’t quite ready’ means) and Skelton’s first training session was only yesterday…

[loudnconfident]

To give you a guide, that is a **wild** XXIII that Schmidt's just picked.

Nick Frost was in Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead.
Puja

Thx Puja for. a typically comprehensive update.

(IIRC Nick Frost sobered up and returned to fitness in The World's End)

It looks like fun when Chat GPT gets common things confused and makes nonsensical statements, so I thought I'd try it. Never actually saw The World's End - is it worth my time?

Puja

Yes, well worth a watch, I prefer it to Hot Fuzz. A pub crawl as an existential journey. The script is intelligent and makes sense, the sly digs at identikit pubs are fun, and a satisfying ending.

[Cameo]

Kerevi I can get. He's a good player but hasn't been available and Paisami is also one of their better players. Importantly, he also seems smart, in a team that is prone to being a bit dim (in a rugby sense).

Paisami's not available - do you mean Ikitau ro have you misread the teamsheet?

Puja

Misread/didn't read and just assumed.

Always thought of Ikitau as a 13.

[FKAS]

Kerevi I can get. He's a good player but hasn't been available and Paisami is also one of their better players. Importantly, he also seems smart, in a team that is prone to being a bit dim (in a rugby sense).

Paisami's not available - do you mean Ikitau ro have you misread the teamsheet?

Puja

Misread/didn't read and just assumed.

Always thought of Ikitau as a 13.

Ikitau normally is a 13 you are correct there. The midfield for Australia is going to be asked a lot of questions.

[Mr Mwenda]

Thx Puja for. a typically comprehensive update.

(IIRC Nick Frost sobered up and returned to fitness in The World's End)

It looks like fun when Chat GPT gets common things confused and makes nonsensical statements, so I thought I'd try it. Never actually saw The World's End - is it worth my time?

Puja

Yes, well worth a watch, I prefer it to Hot Fuzz. A pub crawl as an existential journey. The script is intelligent and makes sense, the sly digs at identikit pubs are fun, and a satisfying ending.

Interesting, I like all three but thought that the world's end's ending was the weakest. It kind of felt like something that works better on paper than the reality. I liked the fact that they changed the roles of pegg and frost though. Likewise, coming from a small town I appreciated the setting as finally matching my own upbringing. I need to rewatch the world's end now.

[Banquo]

When we used to do player marking, I often suggested doing it in units. It seems to me that is not a bad way of assessing SB.

Front row - needs to take risks on younger options perhaps. 6.
Second row - can't do better apart from bench glitches. 9.
Back row - shambolic. 4.
Half backs - apart from picking the right starting 10, struggling. 5.
Centres - lining up Slade and Lawrence till somebody better comes along will do for now. 6.
Back Three - picking the best but might need to be ruthless if standards drop. 8.

Bench - farcical. 2.


Overall - 5/10. Results against top opposition poor. Performances not horrendous, arguably, but responsible for costly bench influence turning potential victories into defeats.

Why is the back row shambolic? I mean it could be better, but all three starters are test quality, even if Earl is very annoying.
I also thought Spencer had a decent game, which leaves… the right 10 apparently

[Oakboy]

When we used to do player marking, I often suggested doing it in units. It seems to me that is not a bad way of assessing SB.

Front row - needs to take risks on younger options perhaps. 6.
Second row - can't do better apart from bench glitches. 9.
Back row - shambolic. 4.
Half backs - apart from picking the right starting 10, struggling. 5.
Centres - lining up Slade and Lawrence till somebody better comes along will do for now. 6.
Back Three - picking the best but might need to be ruthless if standards drop. 8.

Bench - farcical. 2.


Overall - 5/10. Results against top opposition poor. Performances not horrendous, arguably, but responsible for costly bench influence turning potential victories into defeats.

Why is the back row shambolic? I mean it could be better, but all three starters are test quality, even if Earl is very annoying.
I also thought Spencer had a decent game, which leaves… the right 10 apparently

Did you think Marcus got sufficient decent ball? Our only turnover (I think) was Itoje's near the end - cancelled out by Earl's stupid no-arms tackle penalty. I though Earl and Curry were ineffective. Both might be of test quality at their best but Earl is on a downward spiral of form and Curry is not the player he was. Maybe they will be the answer against SA on the back of denting a weak Australia side tomorrow but I doubt it.

[Puja]

When we used to do player marking, I often suggested doing it in units. It seems to me that is not a bad way of assessing SB.

Front row - needs to take risks on younger options perhaps. 6.
Second row - can't do better apart from bench glitches. 9.
Back row - shambolic. 4.
Half backs - apart from picking the right starting 10, struggling. 5.
Centres - lining up Slade and Lawrence till somebody better comes along will do for now. 6.
Back Three - picking the best but might need to be ruthless if standards drop. 8.

Bench - farcical. 2.


Overall - 5/10. Results against top opposition poor. Performances not horrendous, arguably, but responsible for costly bench influence turning potential victories into defeats.

Why is the back row shambolic? I mean it could be better, but all three starters are test quality, even if Earl is very annoying.
I also thought Spencer had a decent game, which leaves… the right 10 apparently

Did you think Marcus got sufficient decent ball? Our only turnover (I think) was Itoje's near the end - cancelled out by Earl's stupid no-arms tackle penalty. I though Earl and Curry were ineffective. Both might be of test quality at their best but Earl is on a downward spiral of form and Curry is not the player he was. Maybe they will be the answer against SA on the back of denting a weak Australia side tomorrow but I doubt it.

I believe we did get two other jackal turnovers, but they were all after the starting flankers had left the pitch and when NZ were chasing, so I take your point. We did earn a lot of other turnovers from pressure in defence, which the back row were a huge part of, and I will go back to my earlier point of "entirely shutting down the New Zealand back row is a pretty good accomplishment in and of itself," but we have had that discussion once already.

While I am less than thrilled about losing 4 from the last 5 games, and even less thrilled about throwing away handy leads in all 4, the fact still remains that we were in the position to throw away handy leads and lose by one score in the first place. We were playing France and New Zealand (with three of them being away from home) and were on par with two of the best teams in the world for 80 minutes (and we can extend that out to the Ireland game for further evidence). Yes, that does mean SFA without us actually winning games, but it feels a bit harsh to be saying 5/10 when we'd've killed for being regularly on par with them for most of the time post 2019.

Puja

[Stom]

Why is the back row shambolic? I mean it could be better, but all three starters are test quality, even if Earl is very annoying.
I also thought Spencer had a decent game, which leaves… the right 10 apparently

Did you think Marcus got sufficient decent ball? Our only turnover (I think) was Itoje's near the end - cancelled out by Earl's stupid no-arms tackle penalty. I though Earl and Curry were ineffective. Both might be of test quality at their best but Earl is on a downward spiral of form and Curry is not the player he was. Maybe they will be the answer against SA on the back of denting a weak Australia side tomorrow but I doubt it.

I believe we did get two other jackal turnovers, but they were all after the starting flankers had left the pitch and when NZ were chasing, so I take your point. We did earn a lot of other turnovers from pressure in defence, which the back row were a huge part of, and I will go back to my earlier point of "entirely shutting down the New Zealand back row is a pretty good accomplishment in and of itself," but we have had that discussion once already.

While I am less than thrilled about losing 4 from the last 5 games, and even less thrilled about throwing away handy leads in all 4, the fact still remains that we were in the position to throw away handy leads and lose by one score in the first place. We were playing France and New Zealand (with three of them being away from home) and were on par with two of the best teams in the world for 80 minutes. Yes, that does mean SFA without us actually winning a match, but it feels a bit harsh to be saying 5/10 when we'd've killed for being regularly on par with them for most of the time post 2019.

Puja

Also, smith got the same kind of service as at Quins: crazy, high tempo nonsense. And that worked.

We just need to keep it up.

I was pleasantly surprised by Spencer, he didn’t crap the bed.

[jngf]

When we used to do player marking, I often suggested doing it in units. It seems to me that is not a bad way of assessing SB.

Front row - needs to take risks on younger options perhaps. 6.
Second row - can't do better apart from bench glitches. 9.
Back row - shambolic. 4.
Half backs - apart from picking the right starting 10, struggling. 5.
Centres - lining up Slade and Lawrence till somebody better comes along will do for now. 6.
Back Three - picking the best but might need to be ruthless if standards drop. 8.

Bench - farcical. 2.


Overall - 5/10. Results against top opposition poor. Performances not horrendous, arguably, but responsible for costly bench influence turning potential victories into defeats.

Why is the back row shambolic? I mean it could be better, but all three starters are test quality, even if Earl is very annoying.
I also thought Spencer had a decent game, which leaves… the right 10 apparently

Whilst I wouldn’t say it’s shambolic I’d suggest:

I) Tom Curry has not been our best openside for some time and I always rated Underhill as significantly better in that role ( no problems with using Curry as blindside though)

Ii) I love the flair and pace that Ben Earl brings to England but I also share the view that there are bigger and better hard yard carriers and that seems to be a prerequisite for successive England sides regarding the 8 berth.

Iii) CCS looks a fantastic prospect but would like to see what he could do at 8

[Puja]

I was pleasantly surprised by Spencer, he didn’t crap the bed.

I wasn't happy with Spencer myself - thought he was still ponderous in service and was an active handbrake on our attack - but he wasn't as bad as some of my expectations, so I guess maybe progress?

Certainly I've lost all appetite for calling for Randall to start, although that has less to do with Spencer's performance...

Puja

[Stom]

I was pleasantly surprised by Spencer, he didn’t crap the bed.

I wasn't happy with Spencer myself - thought he was still ponderous in service and was an active handbrake on our attack - but he wasn't as bad as some of my expectations, so I guess maybe progress?

Certainly I've lost all appetite for calling for Randall to start, although that has less to do with Spencer's performance...

Puja

lol.

There’s something wrong with the performance of all our subs…

[Mellsblue]

Paisami's not available - do you mean Ikitau ro have you misread the teamsheet?

Puja

Misread/didn't read and just assumed.

Always thought of Ikitau as a 13.

Ikitau normally is a 13 you are correct there. The midfield for Australia is going to be asked a lot of questions.

Where are Paisami and Kerevi will certainly be one.

[Puja]

Misread/didn't read and just assumed.

Always thought of Ikitau as a 13.

Ikitau normally is a 13 you are correct there. The midfield for Australia is going to be asked a lot of questions.

Where are Paisami and Kerevi will certainly be one.

Paisami's injured, so that's an easy one.

Puja

[Puja]

Just read in an article that Australia have only 4 games before the B&I Lions tour and thought, "That can't possibly be right," but looking at it, it is. These 4 autumn internationals to try and build some semblance of a team, and then their next fixture is against the Lions.



No wonder Schmidt's thrown Suaalii in straight away. Maximum of four games to get him acclimated to international rugby union.

I'm astonished that Australia have not organised any warm-up fixtures for themselves. Super Rugby finishes mid-June, and the first test isn't until 19th July - you'd've thought Schmidt would've insisted on having a game or two against Fiji or Samoa or Japan or something, just to build combinations and knock the rust off?

Puja

[Banquo]

When we used to do player marking, I often suggested doing it in units. It seems to me that is not a bad way of assessing SB.

Front row - needs to take risks on younger options perhaps. 6.
Second row - can't do better apart from bench glitches. 9.
Back row - shambolic. 4.
Half backs - apart from picking the right starting 10, struggling. 5.
Centres - lining up Slade and Lawrence till somebody better comes along will do for now. 6.
Back Three - picking the best but might need to be ruthless if standards drop. 8.

Bench - farcical. 2.


Overall - 5/10. Results against top opposition poor. Performances not horrendous, arguably, but responsible for costly bench influence turning potential victories into defeats.

Why is the back row shambolic? I mean it could be better, but all three starters are test quality, even if Earl is very annoying.
I also thought Spencer had a decent game, which leaves… the right 10 apparently

Did you think Marcus got sufficient decent ball? Our only turnover (I think) was Itoje's near the end - cancelled out by Earl's stupid no-arms tackle penalty. I though Earl and Curry were ineffective. Both might be of test quality at their best but Earl is on a downward spiral of form and Curry is not the player he was. Maybe they will be the answer against SA on the back of denting a weak Australia side tomorrow but I doubt it.

Shambolic just struck me as ott, and Smith is still highlights real and force it himself imo- hasn’t worked out his role yet. Bit like Earl actually. Curry remains what he always was as a player, but a tad less mobile.

[Mikey Brown]

That’s a good comparison on Smith and Earl. Offering many of the few bright spots, but also getting some fundamentals a bit wrong.

[Mellsblue]

Ikitau normally is a 13 you are correct there. The midfield for Australia is going to be asked a lot of questions.

Where are Paisami and Kerevi will certainly be one.

Paisami's injured, so that's an easy one.

Puja

Can we please have a tongue in cheek emoji.