Looking back, even from the warm-up matches England didn't look secure, the pack seemed inconsistent at set-piece, and the back line was changed again and again never settling. Lancaster has had four years to settle on his best team, but has never managed it. Looking at the team that took the field against Australia in the crunch match, the front row seemed strong, but Tom Youngs has always been behind Hartley before now, and Joe Marler has been accused of illegal scrummaging all tournament. In the locks, I don't think anyone knows who the first choice selection is, Parling was brought in as emergency at the lineout, breaking apart the apparent choice of Lawes/Launchbury. Also in the squad the inexperienced George Kruis was selected over the power-house Dave Attwood, it reeked of confusion. The back-row also suffered considerable chopping and changing, Robshaw was the eternal ever present unsurprisingly, but Tom Wood never really nailed down the shirt and the inform warrior of Haskell was often over looked despite the job he did on Wales during the 6 Nations. At No. 8 England possess two of the best ball carrying options in the British Isles, yet neither performed consistently for long enough (both picking up injuries was worrying regularity) to build a reputation in the international game.
Although despite all the inconsistency in the pack, they look positively settled compared to the constant changing in the England back-line. While a lot of this is down to injuries of England's pick name players it's still surprising just how often England changed their set up. Ben Youngs was in firm possession of the nine shirt into the World Cup, but never seemed trusted enough to last a whole game - always substituted early in the second half despite often being England's best player - we'll touch on Lancaster bench usage later. You can argue that this was Lancaster picking on form, but Danny Care was the live-wire that unleashed the England back-line in the past. Just outside him was the constant battle between Farrell and Ford, both worthy international fly-halves and in was always going to be difficult to choose between the two. In the warm-ups Ford looked a little lacking in control, and maybe it was expected that Farrell was going to bring an element of control for the big matches. The confusing thing was that - against Australia any way - England looked to utilise the Bath style attacking technique, surely logically you should pick the Bath fly-half to pull that off? It was incredibly noticeable when Ford came on against Australia that their attack picked up and they look much better with ball in hand.
 |
| England still are unsure as to who should be at fly-half |
 |
| Did England miss Tuilagi? |
The England back-three was perhaps the only settled section in the entire team, Mike Brown is the best fullback in the northern hemisphere at the moment, Anthony Watson showed just how lethal a finisher he is, despite playing all of his club rugby at fullback, and Jonny May found some quality form, backing his speed rather than constantly trying side step through the defence.
Overall the writing was on the wall for England, not in a strong foreboding way but the signs were there. Against France the scrum crumpled, which then happened again in the opening match against Fiji. That game against Fiji wasn't exactly the type of game to fill the fans with confidence, yes they got the bonus point (something neither Wales nor Australia managed) but they were wholly unconvincing, and lucky not to have lost it around the 60 minute mark as Fiji pushed hard. A week later game the biggest game in World Cup history, Wales vs England at Twickenham. This time England were the dominant team for the majority of the game, Ben Youngs running Wales ragged and Joe Marler - illegal or not - demolishing the Welsh scrum with glee. Yet even against a Wales team patched together with duct tape and blue-tack they couldn't get over the line. Robshaw could be having nightmares for the next four years about that last penalty decision, two points from that game and they'd still be in the tournament and Wales would be the team likely to be knocked out instead.
However England knew what they had to do against Australia, a win nothing else would do (well a bonus point draw would have sufficed but that was always unlikely). Lancaster again selected Farrell to lead his team, understandable after the kicking display against Wales, however it's the prevailing opinion of many pundits that while Farrell is a ten to make sure you don't lose, Ford is the fly-half who is likely to win you the game. And in the end it was perhaps Farrell that cost England the game. After Ford had come on and England looked on top, bringing the scoreline back within one converted try Australia were on the back foot. England's defence was ferocious, Australia repelled again and again, that was until Farrell showed too much ferocity. Trying to read the pass - through the dummy runners - he got it terribly wrong pile driving into Giteau with debatable effort to use his arms. Behind him Burgess practically clotheslined Hooper - who actually had the ball - but this was ignored by the officials in the end, despite in my opinion it being the worse offence. The loss of Farrell (who had shifted to inside centre), leaving just the rookie Burgess to defend the middle of the park meant Australia took control back.
The fact that Burgess was on the field was an unfortunate one, England were hit with tricky injuries as May didn't return after half time, Joseph moving to wing, yet Lancaster decided to disrupt his fly-half axis and move Farrell to centre instead of using the centre on his bench. Perhaps Burgess could have added more to England's attack while they seemed on top. It wasn't the only confusing change, again Ben Youngs was replaced early, when he was having a very good game, replaced by the Saracen Wigglesworth who has never really shown any form at this World Cup, certainly not enough to merit such an early inclusion. Confusing substitutions have defined the Lancaster tenure, flashbacks to Paris last year with Danny Care being taken off far too early, and in this World Cup
 |
| Ben Youngs always one of England's best |
The yellow-card wasn't the only reason for England's defeat, the scrum was beaten repeatedly by the Wallabies (something I never thought I'd say), and the ten-twelve axis of Foley and Giteau was just majestic, how neither of them won Man of the Match is beyond me, controlling the game, putting their body on the lines to make ground and both slicing through the white wall on multiple occasions. But the number one reason that Australia dominated the game was Pocock and Hooper, this double openside system has proven its efficiency again and again. I lost count of the number of turnovers and penalties that Pocock won at the breakdown, and the athleticism and sheer disregard for his personal safety of Hooper provided both defensive security and an ability to win the gain-line battle too. Australia didn't notice the "missing" ball carrier that some pundits mention, without a true No. 8, with Scott Fardy doing the donkey work of two players. Australia currently look the strongest team at this World Cup, after South Africa stummbled through the first rounds and New Zealand looked limp against Georgia. Wales have to look out next weekend.
 |
| Are Pocock and Hooper going to be the pairing of the World Cup? They've been lethal so far |
In the end though the big news is England have become the first host nation to ever exit the World Cup in the pool stages, and the first former-finalist not to make the knock-out stages. As much as the players and coaching staff are hurting, the back-room staff can take solace in the fact that they have produced the greatest World Cup in memory without a shadow of a doubt.
No comments:
Post a Comment