2 Dec: RLWC2017 (Final): Australia v England - Match Thread

[Harry Stottle]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Its an old fashioned adage though.

Some will go for the points, some will make the decision to force the team to defend their line.

Based on how knackered the Aussies were at the end, i am comfortable that the decisions to run the ball helped that.

We needed to score a try or two to win. Not lose 6 v2 or 6 v 4.

Unless it is in the dying minutes, I have never been an advocate of giving up field territory for 2 points and moreso especially when behind on the scoreboard, many will now elude to the fact that 2 points are 2 points or half a try's value, on the other hand how many times has a mistake been made then from the recieving team at the kick off to then concede 6 points.

Irrespective of either of those scenarios, any action being discussed retrospectively  after the event carries no substance whatsoever, we have a completley different game to discuss, the game simply does not take the same continuum.

[DavidM]

Just my opinion but I never thought about kicking the goals from the early penalties. I actually got a bit wound up with woods mentioning it . It’s ok in hindsight with how it ended up but Australia don’t usually score just one try , and the consensus seemed to be we needed three or four scores and had to show intent when the chances were there. I thought that would have sent out the wrong signal and I fully endorse going for tries with attacking penalties - you just don’t know how it’s going to work out from there , and it helps if you don’t mess it up or it looks a bad call then !!

[St Reatham]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

24hrs on. 

Even more gutted.

 

Agreed. But, I’m glad I’ll get the chance to see England lift the cup in person when we win the 2021 final in England ?

[Lowdesert]

10 hours ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

We need to do very little other than back the talent we already have in SL to stay at that level for a long time. One thing I think we missed again today is an Edwards or a Hanley, or a Long, someone with the character to get into the ear of the referee. Smith should be getting paid an extra salary as the second ref for their games, and we needed someone in the ear of the other Aussie ref’s ear to point out how they take the p—— at the ptb and at re starts. 

IMO that is the out and out biggest shortfall.  Strong leadership around the field.  

[Derwent]

It reminded me of the 1992 final where we were also the better team for long spells but couldn’t make it count. 

[Lowdesert]

9 hours ago, Trojan said:

And yet when Burgess confronted him after the obvious obstruction he was told to go away.  The ref shouldn't have needed to go to the video ref, the obstruction was obvious.  Not technical, actual.  I thought the ref was fairer to England second half than first, but really killed us first.  Neutral refs in games like this are essential.  And I believe there was one available.

Why shouldn’t have chased him off? Wasn’t it Whitehead? The Ref was speaking to the VR and if your going to speak to him, be smart.

In play, that obstruction wasn’t so obvious either.  Whitehead pushed Smith but then gave up.  Sure, Smith moved into the defender on the replay, but the Ref would have done well to see that 1st time round.  I thought we were lucky to get away with that.  Even with that evidence we’ve been on the wrong end of those before.  

[shaun mc]

5 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Why shouldn’t have chased him off? Wasn’t it Whitehead? The Ref was speaking to the VR and if your going to speak to him, be smart.

In play, that obstruction wasn’t so obvious either.  Whitehead pushed Smith but then gave up.  Sure, Smith moved into the defender on the replay, but the Ref would have done well to see that 1st time round.  I thought we were lucky to get away with that.  Even with that evidence we’ve been on the wrong end of those before.  

The Aussie commentators said it was a straight forward obstruction and penalty. Granted though we see them going all ways in SL

[Dave T]

I thought the ref did ok. There were errors imho but all pretty standard stuff.

I think there were 13 penalties which was a far better situation than the nonsense in game 1 and the game was no worse for the extra 10 penalties

I still dont think we got much luck on things like the charge down etc but nothing too outrageous. The errors are what i would class as normal game errors.

[Trojan]

26 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Why shouldn’t have chased him off? Wasn’t it Whitehead? The Ref was speaking to the VR and if your going to speak to him, be smart.

In play, that obstruction wasn’t so obvious either.  Whitehead pushed Smith but then gave up.  Sure, Smith moved into the defender on the replay, but the Ref would have done well to see that 1st time round.  I thought we were lucky to get away with that.  Even with that evidence we’ve been on the wrong end of those before.  

I sat watching the game on with three other people, all regular RL fans, we all said "obstruction" immediately, before the "try" was scored.

[Trojan]

20 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I thought the ref did ok. There were errors imho but all pretty standard stuff.

I think there were 13 penalties which was a far better situation than the nonsense in game 1 and the game was no worse for the extra 10 penalties

I still dont think we got much luck on things like the charge down etc but nothing too outrageous. The errors are what i would class as normal game errors.

You mean apart from the Aussie try from a forward pass?

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Trojan said:

You mean apart from the Aussie try from a forward pass?

I agree it is forward but it was close enough to be one of thoae that is given half the time. I do think it was a 50:50 and unfortunately we came out on the wrong side.

[Lowdesert]

14 minutes ago, Trojan said:

I sat watching the game on with three other people, all regular RL fans, we all said "obstruction" immediately, before the "try" was scored.

Yes, I thought similar, praying he would go to the VR.  Two Our Fathers and a Hail Mary later he gave the decision.

Wasnt do apparent from where Sutton was though.

[Gerrumonside ref]

It was a great final, properly gripping and tense with the result in the balance right up until the end.

 

[deluded pom?]

20 minutes ago, Trojan said:

You mean apart from the Aussie try from a forward pass?

I've seen it from a couple of angles. The low shot looks flat whilst the high angle looks forward IMO. I can understand why Sutton saw it the way he did. The TJ should have spotted it. I have no qualms with Sutton's call. I was OK with Cecchin's decision on the final play last week without the intervention of the VR and I'm OK with this one too. I do realise they can't go to VR for a forward pass. 

[deluded pom?]

42 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I thought the ref did ok. There were errors imho but all pretty standard stuff.

I think there were 13 penalties which was a far better situation than the nonsense in game 1 and the game was no worse for the extra 10 penalties

I still dont think we got much luck on things like the charge down etc but nothing too outrageous. The errors are what i would class as normal game errors.

The day I see a totally error free eighty minutes from all of the players is the day I'll expect the same from the ref.

[GUBRATS]

Poor execution and game management cost us 

I posted during the game " get to the line and get the ball over the line " 

How many times did we get the ball over their line ? 

It was like watching the Leythers last year , after loads of effort we'd finally get into the opposition 10 only to do a XXXX or bust play and get forced into touch , or try to smash our way through when instead you must put the ball over the line and make the opposition bring it back into play 

Force a drop out ( as long as the ref doesn't allow time for a brew and a cig ) and your odds of scoring next set rise rapidly ( fairly sure they scored after a repeat set ) at this level 

 

[stevereed100]

58 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I agree it is forward but it was close enough to be one of thoae that is given half the time. I do think it was a 50:50 and unfortunately we came out on the wrong side.

But Aus got away all series with these 'flat" passes! And from a Aus ref!

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, stevereed100 said:

But Aus got away all series with these 'flat" passes! And from a Aus ref!

Yep , frustrating isnt it ? , in the semi I counted 3 of Holmes's trys were off forward passes , it just gets ridiculous 

[GeordieSaint]

1 hour ago, Trojan said:

I sat watching the game on with three other people, all regular RL fans, we all said "obstruction" immediately, before the "try" was scored.

So I shouted “crossing... obstruction” loudly and then preceeded to get a dressing down off the wife for upsetting the kids...ooops! ?

[Lowdesert]

37 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Poor execution and game management cost us 

I posted during the game " get to the line and get the ball over the line " 

How many times did we get the ball over their line ? 

It was like watching the Leythers last year , after loads of effort we'd finally get into the opposition 10 only to do a XXXX or bust play and get forced into touch , or try to smash our way through when instead you must put the ball over the line and make the opposition bring it back into play 

Force a drop out ( as long as the ref doesn't allow time for a brew and a cig ) and your odds of scoring next set rise rapidly ( fairly sure they scored after a repeat set ) at this level 

 

Barring the Try, Australia did no better getting the ball over the line. We created pressure, we didn’t maintain it.  

Chris Hill got very close from a SB offload.  Seems to have been forgotten.

[GUBRATS]

3 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Barring the Try, Australia did no better getting the ball over the line. We created pressure, we didn’t maintain it.  

Chris Hill got very close from a SB offload.  Seems to have been forgotten.

We did an offload ? 

Yes we did defend our line very well , but wether the Aussies did better or not isnt the issue , we should have done better , personally I'd have had Williams on the bench rather than Lomax , his running at a defensive line late on could have caused the Aussies real problems 

[deluded pom?]

8 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

We did an offload ? 

Yes. Watkins to Graham. Didn't you see it?

[redjonn]

12 hours ago, DoubleD said:

Kicking penalties would’ve been a sign of weakness and shown the Aussies we didn’t believe we could score a try. You won’t beat the Aussies by kicking penalties 

Well the earlier penalty I think we should have taken two... why because at that stage the Aussie's where relative fresh and still had oodles of energy in the tank,    For England you would expect even if confident would win but surely the thought that to win it would be a close game and hence two points be really important later (surely no English player expected England to score loads of points),  You would be confident of getting back down for more sets as it was earlier in game,    Aussie's had been dominant at that stage,  we as in England had used up more energy from the tank, so a chance to get return kick and have them using up some energy in defending our next set.   plus it would make the Aussies more keenly aware of not given more kick-able penalties away,,, for instance being extra cautious running off line in case given off-side...

As distinct of showing weakness it could have shown that we where  being confident of getting opportunities and scoring try's later and keeping game close... hence two points could have been the difference.

of course if situation was at that the stage of game Aussies looking tired and running on empty a different choice,,, but the first penalty Aussies where not blowing and had shown themselves to be top defenders.

My point being it could have been a rational choice not a daft choice in the broader game management as distinct from the instant tactical choice of the moment ... especially if used to playing in close intense games.

[Trojan]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I agree it is forward but it was close enough to be one of thoae that is given half the time. I do think it was a 50:50 and unfortunately we came out on the wrong side.

Again, as with the obstruction,  I thought is was clearly a forward pass, nothing marginal about it, the player was in front when he passed the ball, as I posted earlier, I've no doubt he'd have called it had it been and England score.

[Trojan]

30 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

So I shouted “crossing... obstruction” loudly and then preceeded to get a dressing down off the wife for upsetting the kids...ooops! ?

I know the feeling.  My wife makes herself scarce these days when I'm watching rugby .