Smash them: Samoa showed the Wallabies the way
Columnist
By Spiro Zavos, 17 Jun 2007 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
One of the less pleasant experiences I’ve had as a rugby journalist was joining a group of reptiles for a briefing on England’s bid to host the 2007 Rugby World Cup.
The event was at a Chinese restaurant on Sydney’s north shore. Leading England’s team of officials doing the briefing was Francis Baron, who is every bit as bossy and self-righteous in his opinions as his name suggests. One of the points of contention I raised with Baron as a black mark against England’s bid was that outside of Twickenham, English rugby had no other rugby stadiums that were good enough to host a World Cup match. Some of the football pitches they intended to use, such as Manchester United’s home ground, were terrific venues but the fields didn’t allow for a maximum sized rugby field.
The football ground at Bristol, one of the designated grounds of England’s 2007 World Cup, and where the All Blacks played Tonga in 1999, was decrepit and too small. ‘I’ve heard about you,’ Baron muttered when I made these points. There was more than a touch of arrogance in his muttering, as if some one from the colonies who questioned the wisdom of headquarters, was an upstart who deserved to be put in his place. His reply in detail was totally inadequate.
So it doesn’t surprise me that Baron is leading the argument to reduce the number of teams in the World Cup from 20 to 16. The bottom line for England with a 16-team World Cup tournament is that eight grounds and not 10 grounds a round would be needed for the pool rounds. Baron also wants the top tier nations NEVER to play the second tier nations. Again, such a system would mean that England played more – lucrative? – matches against South African, Australia, and NZ and fewer matches against less illustrious opponents.
The argument against Baron’s convenient (for the self-styled Rugby Football Union – England’s rugby union) arguments of creating an elite and isolated group of tier one rugby nations was well put by a NZ journalist, Michael Donaldson, after Canada’s game and belligerent match against the All Blacks. The 64-13 result belied the true rugby spirit of never giving up that Canada epitomised during the contest. ‘Baron’s view,’ Donaldson wrote, ‘would also deny Canada the thrill of looking at the scoreboard in the 21st minute and reading 12 – 10 to New Zealand. Game on.’
And Baron’s policy would also deny a player like Mike Pyke the thrill of scoring a long range try against NZ. Pyke intercepted a pass from a NZ backline move identical to that which gave Stirling Mortlock his famous intercept try against the All Blacks in the 2003 World Cup semi-final.
For the Canadians, as it was for the Fijians at Perth, playing against the legendary players of world rugby is a thrill of a lifetime. It is a pleasure that mean-spirited officials like Baron should not deny players from less rugby nations in the World Cup, and in one-off tests.
There is also a value for the first tier countries playing the lesser nations. The Springboks this season against England in two tests looked like World Cup winners. But then Manu Samoa played the South African second-string squad. The Samoans showed that gang tackling, hitting the ball runner hard and securely, reduced the Springboks to a barge and bash game that could be contained, provided the tackling and defensive lines were secure.
Samoa demonstrated to the rest of the rugby world that the Springboks, to use a boxing analogy, were Mike Tyson, throwing haymakers and knock-out punches but lacking in skills in the crucial five-eighths area to dissect a strong, front-on and aggressive defence. The Springboks can’t do too much about this without a skilful playmaker at five-eighths. But the Wallabies got the message.
They embraced the Samoan defensive policy – almost successfully – against the Springboks at Newlands. Players that this writer has scorned in the past lifted their game considerably. Stand up and take a bow George Gregan, Matt Dunning, Rocky Elsom, Lote Tuqiri and Nathan Sharpe. Daniel Vickerman, Stephen Larkham, Matt Giteau and Geroge Smith were – as usual – outstanding players, as well. My thought was that the Wallabies coaching staff, in fact, made a mistake in substituting Smith with Phil Waugh. Waugh had trouble containing Pierre Spies running from the scrums and it was from these breaks that the Springboks got themselves into the position to kick the two drop goals to win the test.
If there is such a thing as a ‘good loss’ – and I find the concept an unappealing oxymoron – then the Wallabies had a good loss in South Africa. They were leading at half-time and most teams go on from this position to win tests. They exposed strategic and skills weaknesses in the Springboks. Converting this terrific effort into victories against the All Blacks at Melbourne on June 30 and the Springboks at Sydney on July 7 are the next challenges of the World Cup journey.
[pic via Rugby Australia]
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (173)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (70)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (65)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (58)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- France turns to Parra and Trinh-Duc
- Rebels look to lift for formidable Blues in rugby trial
- Mr Fix-It Lucas wants to nail down No.10
- Force roost loses ‘Mother Hen’ Sharpe
- Victory beat Mariners with Kewell winner
- Waratahs romp to 83-5 trial win over Samoa A
- Quade Cooper’s return to the Reds goes up a gear
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (29)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (19)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (202)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
sheek said | June 17th 2007 @ 5:28pm | Report comment
Spiro,
I love my Rugby & want to see it grow, but at present I believe the IRB is more interested in quantity, rather than quality. The IRB loves to sprout how many nations are playing Rugby, but there appears little genuine effort to raise the standards of 2nd tier & below, nations.
I also support a 20-nation World Cup. But consequently, if the IRB isn’t serious about developing the quality as well as quantity of Rugby playing nations, we might as well go back to a 16-nation World Cup. Or heaven forbid, a World Cup of just the traditional “big 8″. I detest the double standards & hypocrisy of the IRB.
As for the Wallabies last night, I thought if the Wallabies could only lose by 10-15 points, that would be satisfactory. My expectations were very low. But to lose an away game to the Boks with 2 drop goals within the last10 minutes represented an exceptional effort.
My take on the individual Wallabies:
1 – Dunning. Usually I’m not a Dunning fan, but he was a huge man last night.
2 – Moore. Why can’t professional hookers throw straight? Improving…..?
3 – Shepherdson. Toiled hard, but out of depth.
4 – Sharpe. Played well, but often lazy. Requires consistent high level.
5 – Vickerman. Magnificent!
6 – Elsom. Toiled heroically.
7 – Smith. Magnificent!
8 – Palu. Tried hard, but appears to lack tactical nouse.
9 – Gregan. Why? Let’s see what Cordingly, Valentine or even Henjak can do?
10 – Larkham. Erratic. Gun-shy. Conservative. Needs retiring.
11 – Tugiri. Most involved I’ve seen him for ages. Excellent.
12 – Giteau. Lack of size exposed at 12. Should be flyhalf.
13 – Mortlock. No longer has explosive pace for 13. Now better suited at 12.
14 – Mitchell. Few opportunities. Has good skills, but lacks genuine pace.
15- Huxley. Good provincial player. Out of depth at test level.
When fit, I would bring Blake into tighthead. Polota-Nau at hooker. As long as Sharpe maintains effort, he stays. Otherwise, bring in either Chisholm or McMenamin. Not particularly happy with Palu, but he appears the best of available altenatives.
I would revamp the backline totally. Retire Gregan & Larkham. They were great players once, emphasis on the WERE! Try Cordingly, Valentine, even Henjak at scrumhalf.
Move Giteau to flyhalf. Either Mortlock or Staniforth at inside centre. Mortlock has lost zip off his pace for 13. Play either Ashley-Cooper or Cross at outside centre. Even Staniforth.
When fit, Shepherd & Latham would occupy the 14 & 15 positions. Until then, wouldn’t Ashley-Cooper be a safer option than Huxley at fullback?
Spiro has previously mentioned the importance of clever coaching & selections. While our cupboard might be a little bare at the moment, surely the Wallaby coaching & selection staff isn’t maximising whatever talent is available.
At the risk of sounding like a Hanrahan (we’ll all be ruined), despite the heroics of last night, the Wallabies are simply not good enough to win the World Cup in 2007.
Harry Kimble said | June 17th 2007 @ 7:47pm | Report comment
Just want to agree with Spiro about the English attitude that it is our game and we will do want we want with it.
The RWC must be increased to 24 and there must be cross level playing schedule between the World Cups.
As an example of how lesser nations see playing againct the Big Boys, at A Hong Kong Sevens several years ago, New Zealand was leading Thailand 52-0 and in the dying seconds, Thailand scored in the corner. By the attidude of the Thai and New Zealand players and the crowd, you would havew assumed Thailand had won. Just to score against the mighty All Blacks was a triumph.
To the lesser nations, just to play against the big 8 is their Rugby dream.
Sione www.rugbyfobcast.com said | June 17th 2007 @ 9:38pm | Report comment
Amen Spiro!!
First things first, I totally believe that the Tier 1 teams have an obligation to the game to play the Tier 2 teams for the good of the game, & I agree with Sheek the IRB are using this to increase their wallets pretending it’s whats good for world rugby hiding the fact they, need that money for their board members to meet monthly in Las Vegas or Sun City S.A to discuss what chump change they should give to the Islanders to struggle on just to make it to test matches they organise.
Canada were wonderful against the AB’s as were the Samoans the week before against the Boks, but due to their lack of experiance & players they showed what rugby is all about, passion for your country & the honour to compete against the best.
Although both teams struggled on the scoreboard, they gained huge respect, & as Spiro stated, the Aussies even used the same game plan & method the Samoans used (The only method the Samoans know) that is to smash anything that wears green.
It was funny watching the Aust A team play & then watch the Wallabies play, it was as if, the Aust A team forgot how to tackle & the wallabies finally learnt how too.
I was very impressed with the Wallabies mentallity against the Bok’s only because, we have almost come to expect a less than physical Wallaby team.
George Smith was huge again last night, & should of stayed on, but the coach whom has shown no imagination in his selections & his interchange stuffed up, other soild performers last night where, Shape & Dan Vic, I though Palu, although not very imaginative, was a soild defensively.
Huxley, needs to grow some balls, he hates the contact area like a horney straight guy in a gay bar, and should of been punted with 30mins to play.
Well to end this post, The Rugby World needs teams like the AllBlacks to play against tier 2 & tier 3 teams, we can’t be so ignorant in thinking that the game will suffer if the sccore line blows out because of the real lack of a competive game, but take note that even in the far reachers of this world where even places we have never heard about, people love the game of rugby & worship the likes of Carter, Smit, Gregan & they do the best they can to compete in thier country to become the best players they can be, & for those players to get the oppotunity to play against the All Blacks or the Boks, it would be like a dream regardless of the score.
Its the same thing with the 1st USA Dream Team, he weaker nations where just honoured to be in thier presence.
Its the IRB obligation to continue these game (& take thier money!!)
Carmody said | June 18th 2007 @ 2:50am | Report comment
Spiro
You’ve got it right. It’s almost as if that the Boks, like the Wallabies and AB’s, have a unique collective DNA – a particular way of playing and thinking which inculcates all those who put on the jersey. And the Boks haven’t challenged the underlying structure of their psyche since the early 90′s. They think ‘we’ll bash them. We’re tougher. We’ll cower them. We’ll hurt them.’ It’s an aggressive (and violent) mindset that relies more on the amygdala than the neocortex. So when they are faced with an equal menace their pattern of play goes all recursive.
I thought it strange that JW felt compelled to point out that the Boks were the better team. Why was that necessary? I’d say a partial explanation is that the Wallabies look like they’ve got a few more gears to explore, whereas his own team looked like a pack of stumbling, aggressive zombies with buckets on their head. He’s trying to give the Boks a mental edge over Australia going in to the world cup. Now the Boks were very good. Hard and selfish with possession. But I think most will realise that to win by such a small margin with such a massive amount of possession is not a victory – certainly not with the reality that the Wallabies were unusually abysmal with their kicking. It will worry him that a simple chess move for the next Wallabies game – the removal of Huxley for Cameron Shepherd or Latham – is going to pay territorial dividends for the Wallabies, And since the Boks can’t win with possession alone, territory is everything.
On that point; Huxley. For goodness sake. The guy is gun shy and can’t get his head around the most narrow of tasks. Yes the pressure on him was immense. A fair proportion of that pressure he put on himself by not kicking the ball out, or kicking when he should of run, or kicking a free kick over the dead ball line. This is TEST football – not backyard muck up. What kind of twit pumps the ball down the park with 30 metres of space between him and the closest Boks player??? And by doing that, give them MORE possession?
However, Huxley has other weaknesses which are important tactically – he can’t break tackles. Yes, Giteau can’t either but he creates space for himself and zips laterally to create space for others. The defense know that Huxley isn’t brave and hasn’t got a blood curdling hunger for the try line. I therefore feel very sorry for Cameron Shepherd. He’s easily the better player – hungry too. ‘But Huxley can play 5/8′ some say. Not really. If Australia is forced to use him as flyhalf Australia will be a conservative team, which goes against its very DNA and frustrates the Australian players themselves. There’s nothing worse than playing against your better nature, particularly when this supression leads to losing to the AB’s and Boks.
Huxley doesn’t even suit Australia’s style of play. He’s a northern hemisphere flyhalf. Which suits Connolly.
I hope Scott Johnstone has a bit of leverage in this department and the boys make the right decision. Soon.
I saw Australia A play the JAB’s. Oh dear. That was a tragic effort. The JAB’s were intense, but where were they? Drunk? I did see one spark of light – Digby Ioane stepping like a world class boxer. That guy can step. I think his best position might be in the centres. One of the key strategies in attacking play is the capacity to have the defensive line turning back and crisscrossing each other to create confusion and launch guys running straight through the line. Digby can do this. Particularly if he’s in a side which wants to keep the ball alive. The only issue I have with him is an issue I have with a number of Australian wingers (Lote and Mitchell included) – that he’s used to being at the end of an attacking play and therefore thinks he’s got to break through the line or go down with the ball for recycle. Wingers in Australia need to learn to be play makers and look to use the uncertainty they provide through speed, strength and step, to put others through gaps. If a defensive line is thinking ‘will he step, or go through me’, that’s one thing. But to add to that the possibility that he’s drawing them into a trap to spring another player through a gap- this can freeze the defense making it less flexible.
The predictability of wingers in Australia been a big problem for our attacking phases. Lote, for one has become a bit predictable – this isn’t his fault. The Wallabies and Tahs can’t help but see him as the ‘go to man’. I think this added to his general misery over the last few years because he feels alone.
We need some other generals out there in midfield. Aggressive with the ball. Notice that in league the big teams don’t tolerate non-assertive players on the park. Each player must stamp their authority by taking full responsibility for their role – which is to Dominate their opposite number or key positions. That’s the kind of aggression that’s required in the Wallabies. Each player picks their opposite number(s) and says to themselves – ‘you’re dead meat pal. I’m going to out smart you, out run you and out work you. I’m better calibre than you.’
Australia can’t afford to allow non-dominant players in the side. It creates a ‘I’ll let Lote win the game for me ‘ culture. Bugger that.
Enough pontificating. Just get rid of Huxley.
C
jools-usa said | June 18th 2007 @ 6:41am | Report comment
Ninety percent in agreement with Sheek.
Negatives:
Bernie looked like just going through motions – his not finding touch let to first SA drop gaol (a beauty).
Mortlock never saw ball
Ball arrived at wingers without space.
Giteaus knock on was try, off a SA foot.
Frier & Waugh too small
Positives:
Pack for most part went toe to toe.
Breakdown OK – take away Burget & SA are merely OK.
Wining lineout against Matfield.
Huxley – fairly solid
Gits will only improve to be constant World XV selection..
Gregan gets a 7 out of 10. Could Sam or anyone else done better?
Overall glass is just over half-full.
Jools-USA
bradley udemans said | June 18th 2007 @ 10:06pm | Report comment
I think that the games between the Tier 1 and Tier 2 nations should preferbly be played at the home of the Tier 2 country’s. If the big teams are seen playing in the smaller country’s it may spark more enthusiasm from the locals. The All Blacks could easily sell out a 40,000 stadium anywhere in the world. Why not go over there and give 10,000 free tickets to schools and junior rugby clubs. I bet if a youngster sees the Haka live and see great athletes they will be alot more inspired than seeing a 64-7 defeat in the news.
Also why not play warm up games for the world cup in tier 2 country’s in order to raise awareness for the event?
jonnyboy71 said | June 20th 2007 @ 10:19pm | Report comment
Spiro, Harry Kimble etc.: don’t think for one second that Francis Baron represents an “English” attitude. He’s a pompous bugger – if you followed the recent club vs country battle over here you’ll know that he’s not liked by anyone except himself and some of the 417 people the overblown English RFU employs.
Most English supporters want to see more ‘junior’ nations like Canada given a fairer trot. Many of us want to see Argentina in the Six Nations. A lot of us wanted the 2011 World Cup to go to Japan to spread rugby wider. Some of us even follow Australian club rugby!
Quick question: who are the two Aus schoolboy talents (with bizarre first names…) being touted as the inside backs of the future? Cheers.
spiro zavos said | June 21st 2007 @ 9:49am | Report comment
The two players I think you are referring to are Kurtley Beale and Quade Cooper.
This request brings up something that has intriqued me. I think players with distinctive names, especially in fast-moving sports which rely a lot on the commentators to explain what is happening, have an advantage. Commentators will invariably refer to KURTLEY Beale probably because the sound sounds good whereas other players might just get their surname.
jonnyboy71 said | June 21st 2007 @ 10:05am | Report comment
Cheers Spiro, them’s the ones. I’m doing a piece on the next generation of Oz talent for the Guardian up here in pomland – when are these little beauties going to be ready? And, in your opinion, who’s the spiritial successor to Roff and Latham at full back – is Lachlan Turner worth a shake there? I’m assuming that Josh Holmes and Norton-Knight will be the half-back pairing for 2011 as well – am I way off beam?
All this Kurtley and Quade (someone’s Mum was a Dynasty fan in the 80s, undoubtedly) stuff is purely a response by the ARU to the proliferation of Pac Islander names on the NZ team sheet.
spiro zavos said | June 21st 2007 @ 11:12am | Report comment
The Roar posted a piece on the browning of the Wallabies when Digby Ioane became the first Samoan-origin Wallaby. This might be useful for your Guardian piece, with a suitable reference to http://www.theroar.com.au as the originator of the concept. Kurtley Beale is an Aborigine and Quade Cooper is Maori, like Benji Marshall, a player he resembles in style. They have risen to prominence in rugby union, not because of the NZ team sheet, but because of the changing demographics of Australian society. See the posting on the browning of the Wallabies for light on this, and also the ABC’s Sports Factor radio program a week or so again carried a long interview with me on this new development in Australian rugby.