Matt Dawson: Why England lost to Australia
England have turned the corner in their first two games of the autumn against New Zealand and Australia – but they’re like Jekyll and Hyde.
I hope they can support themselves for 80 minutes.
There were parts of their game that I wasn’t happy with, but they also played some really good stuff.
It was clear from the way they started and beat the Kangaroos that they were well prepared for Saturday’s game. I can’t fault their effort, creativity and spirit but Australia stands out in this regard Won 42-37.
For some reason, one of England’s default approaches when they are ahead and in control of a game is to try and finish the game with a very passive style of playing.
That won’t win them games against top opponents. This didn’t happen once or twice; it was ruthless.
Unless it’s a real contest, like last year’s World Cup semi-final against South Africa in the rain in Paris, it’s not enough to win these games.
England struggle when they revert to their box-kicking attack rather than playing in a way that puts them on top. I feel very strange.
Everyone changes the way they play rugby based on the score, the clock, the referee and the players available.
But England, with 15 men on the field, continued to be in a good position and squandered the opportunity in a game of low-risk rugby that killed their momentum and gave their opponents breathing room and a chance to counterattack.
I guess this is a statistical training method.
Coach Steve Borthwick seems to think this increases the number of times you get the ball back. But remember, you have the ball first and you have pressure and great players.
England gave that up in exchange for the bounce of the ball, or a penalty they could exploit.
