By Andrew Logan
June 16th 2008 @ 7:57am
It is more blessed to give…
In the comments section of an article I wrote last October I made the point that “The best halfbacks can make good ball out of average ball”.
“Witness Catchpole, Hipwell and Farr-Jones - all of whom played behind average Aussie packs and still managed to give their backs a platform. I think that next year we will see that we have given George Gregan too much latitude recently for the failings of his pack”.
On Saturday night the point was proven with the introduction of Luke Burgess to the Australian halfback spot, and all of a sudden the Wallabies were operating with speed, purpose and space.
Burgess’ clearance was a thing of beauty. He waded into rucks, desperately seeking the ball like a fox terrier burying its head down a rabbit burrow, and then hitting runners sharply with deft passes.
Contrast this with the last few years, when the Wallabies runners were often reduced to bashing themselves against brick wall defences in much the same way that a bird might hammer itself against its reflection in a window.
The philosophical difference between the two halfbacks is striking. Gregan, as the peerless leader and dominant figure on the field, eventually doled out ball in much the same way that the master doled out the gruel in Oliver Twist. (More? You want MORE?).
The ethos behind Gregans service seemed to be “I’ll give you the ball when I’m good and ready…..and you better be in the right spot when it comes”. All the pressure was on the runners and receivers. Contrast this with Burgess, who sprays the ball out from the breakdown with the urgency of a man passing buckets to a fire crew. His only regret seems to be that there is but one ball to give and if the day ever comes when multiple balls are introduced to the game, Burgess would be the halfback of choice, because he just loves throwing it out there.
What a joy he must have been to the barrackers in the club rugby stands who incessantly scream out “Give it! Give it!”, since the Burgess outlook on life appears to be simply that. Give it, give it and give it some more.
This tireless distribution had a twofold effect on the game. Firstly, it created flow and rhythm in the attack. Runners who once struggled to time their runs now hit the line hard and straight, secure in the knowledge that their halfback would somehow find them and put the ball in their hands.
Second, it fragmented the Irish defensive line, since there simply wasn’t time for them to get up off the ground and get back in the line in time before the next wave of attack hit.
The two Wallabies tries to Horwill and Barnes were certainly due to two pieces of breathtaking skill from a tackled Lote Tuqiri, and then a wraithlike Matt Giteau (I’m still trying to work out how Giteau managed to dummy, get his arms over the top of the tackle and then flick a backhanded pass to Horwill amidst traffic that made Pitt St look empty, but that’s beside the point).
However, rewind the tape and watch the phases that preceded each try. The space and fragmentation that was eventually enjoyed by the rampaging Tuqiri and the smoke-and-mirrors Giteau was created by the simple but oh-so-effective tool of a halfback clearing quickly and effectively.
Particularly in the Horwill try, you can actually see the Irish defence gradually crumbling phase by phase, because they just aren’t given the time to reform their line.
Of course, Burgess was not a one man band, and his game wasn’t flawless. His cause was aided by the Wallaby forwards who cleaned out effectively, and the runners who lined up to take his passes forward, but the two elements are highly complementary and one can’t exist without the other. If your halfback is clearing quickly, it’s easier for runners to target space in the defence.
And of course, if the runners are hitting holes and going forward, it’s easier for the halfback to clear quickly. It’s an onward and upward spiral – the reverse of the downward spiral of slow service and runners going nowhere that we’ve had the last few years.
For all players and positions there is a skill which is bread and butter. For an open-side it is the breakdown; for a prop, the scrum; for a winger, finding the tryline; and for a halfback, the pass. Burgess may have a few glitches to work out, but the bread and butter skill is overwhelmingly evident. With luck, it could mean that the foundation is there for a return to the glory days of Wallaby running rugby.
Like this article? Please spread the word about the Roar to your mates.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(14)
stillmissit said | June 16th 2008 @ 10:16am | Report comment
What a great relief after years of Gregan standing at the back of the forwards pointing his finger or standing over the ball for an eternity before slopping out a pass.
At last we have a great passing and linking half back again and it would be very pleasing to John Hipwell, Nick Farr-Jones, Steve Merrick etc etc
Spiro Zavos said | June 16th 2008 @ 10:31am | Report comment
The best of the recent Wallaby halfbacks at turning bad ball into good ball was Nick Farr-Jones. It’s interesting that Robbie Deans has called in Farr-Jones to mentor Luke Burgess. I thought Burgess had a terrific first Test. He was several times bowled over ball and all by the Irish forwards. This was not due to the slowness of his passing but the lack of protection from his forwards. As Burgess continues to grow as a player, the folly of George Gregan staying on after the 2003 RWC is becoming more and more apparent. stillmissit is right to point to the Gregan habit of standing over the ball for an eternity as a major fault-line in the game plan of the Wallabies up to the 2007 RWC campaign.
Andrew Logan said | June 16th 2008 @ 10:36am | Report comment
Spiro/Stillmissit……good points both. Something I neglected to mention was the absence of counterrucking from the Irish. Not because they couldn’t or wouldn’t, but simply because the ball was gone before they had the chance. Contrast this with the RWC 1/4 final against England where we were counter-rucked out of the game…..it still makes me shudder.
eric said | June 16th 2008 @ 10:52am | Report comment
Fair go Andrew. I get the feeling you had your mind made well and truly up on this issue before you even saw the Test. To read your article you’d think Aust won by 50 with Burgess scoring all the points.
I agree, Burgess has been a breath of fresh air, and I am excited by him also. But, he didn’t have his best game by a long shot, and was replaced, by a coach who wasn’t making pointless replacements. He was caught as often as Gregan ever was. Maybe the Teltra surface, which appears to be both hard & slippery, and made the ball greasy, didn’t help.
Farr-Jones behind an average pack? That is not the opinion held by rugby fans I know.
“You better be in the right spot” re Gregan’s passing. If that is a suggestion that his passing was wayward it is a one-eyed observation. His passing was beautiful, long and accurate.
You’re forgetting that Gregan played under Eddie Jones, whom we now know was a control freak, with prescribed moves ad infinitum. I’m inclined to cut Gregan some slack, in that maybe much of what he did was under strict instructions from Jones. And, don’t for a minute think halfbacks habit of letting the ball sit at the back of the ruck, while everyone gathers their thoughts has ended. They all seem to do it except Burgess.
So, Andrew, how about a bit of balance?
Ben C said | June 16th 2008 @ 11:26am | Report comment
One interesting thing I noticed was Burgess’ support play. In the try by Horwill, Horwill loomed up behind Giteau in support and took an abolute pearler of a pass, but Burgess was following almost as close and could possibly have taken the pass if Horwill hadn’t supported. It’s pleasing to have a halfback to chases hard to support or get immediately to the ruck to get the ball out.
Burgess did seem to fade quite a bit in the second half, possibly a combination of poor protection (the Irish patting on the head was a wonderful piece of gamesmanship as opposed to many forwards who would scrag the halfback and drag him into the ruck to spoil the attacking play) and overexuberance in the first half. I am sure that after a few games he will learn to pace himself better.
sheek said | June 16th 2008 @ 3:05pm | Report comment
Spiro,
As good as Farr-Jones was at turning bad ball into good, Hipwell was better. Hippy made an art form of it because he rarely had the luxury of playing behind a strong pack, unlike F-J. Also, F-J was inclined to get testy when things weren’t going his way. Hippy was merely stoical.
Here’s my take on the 4 great Wallaby #9s of the past 50 years.
Ken Catchpole. Beautiful pass, not long, but quick. Also into the breadbasket of Hawthorne moving forward. Constantly challenged the defence by mixing his game - darting runs openside & blindside, box kicks. Good defender for a little bloke.
John Hipwell. Nuggety & courageous. Similar to Catchy in everything without quite the same finesse. But turning bad ball into useable ball was his forte. His pass was longer, but perhaps not as quick as Catchy’s. Solid defender.
Nick Farr-Jones. Excellent allround game. Often played as an extra forward without losing the sharpness at the back of the scrum. Mixed his game up well. Developed a keen sense of knowing the right thing to do - pass or run or kick.
George Gregan. It’s been said before - great player but ordinary scrumhalf. Fearless, courageous, strength beyond his size. But his pass was laboured, & lacked variety in his game which didn’t challenge the defence.
Luke Burgess is refreshing. I hope for the sake of Australian rugby, he keeps developing.
Alan Reid said | June 16th 2008 @ 5:23pm | Report comment
I agree, Burgess has a big future, and Gregan was well beyond his use by date. George lost his fizz when he took on captaincy, he started focusing on those around him far too much and stop making the most of his game and the opportunities in front of him. How many tries did he bomb by not running from the base? How much harder was it for the Aussie backs to penetrate because oppositions didin’t have defend the half back and could slide out? I remember one game he threw a pass into a Springbok running back onside when there was no-one between himself and the line.
Burgess is the future, a cheeky young upstart at the base focuses a defence and opens up the opportunities up out wider.
ThelmaWrites said | June 17th 2008 @ 12:19am | Report comment
It was great to see Burgess had the sense to use the dive pass when it was needed, despite the lapse of the dive pass into disuse because “it takes the halfback away from the play”.
Bob McGregor said | June 17th 2008 @ 4:13am | Report comment
Sheek,
Agree with your assessment and rating of our top half backs, but in Catchpole’s day they were Number 7. Possibly same for Hipwell era. Scandalous what Meads did to Catchy - that ended his Rugby career.
Great servant that Gregan was to Wallabies I doubt if he would have taken much notice of Eddie Jones as he and the Brumby push virtually suited themselves. Was main reason John O’Neill was sacked after the 2003 RWC. Case of the farmyard animals taking over the farm.
Fortunately, we were able to get him back again and he was able to get Robbie Deans. That Deans was able to select both Burgess and Hynes immediately confirms to me we have the right man.
Spiro
Agree with you that both McCaw and Smith were penalised when quite entitled to go for the ball as they WERE indeed the tackler. However, one thing that concerns me is their technique in getting to their feet so quickly. Usually they do so by propelling themselves back to their feet by pushing upward by having their hands over the back of the tackled player, holding him down in the process. The onus is on the tackler - having completed the tackle to release and roll away. McCaw and Smith’s technique doesn’t observe this facet of the tackle law. I was under the impression that the tackled player also has rights and they seem to be negated by such action.
The clean out at such times is also a worry. I noted the English forward going off their feet at every ruck - like they did in Marseille in the 2007 RWC quarter final against OZ. About time the “clean out” is seen for what it is - the “seal off” to kill the ruck.
GregC said | June 17th 2008 @ 7:55am | Report comment
I agree; GG set a lot of complacency in the Wallaby psyche when it comes to ruck time. Standing over the ruck set himself up, and consequently Australia, as a sitting duck.
Burgess had a mixed game, but that was mostly because he wasn’t protected. I think Horwill is going to be a good guard for Burgess, in the same way that Finnegan was for Gregan…although they also had Eales etc. When the Wallaby forwards realise how important protecting the halfback is, the Wallabies will be better served. Although we have a very light inside centre/flyhalf - at least weight-wise. Horan was 10kg’s heavier than Barnes, and a lot quicker…I wonder if Digby Ione might be a good addition? It’s important for the halfback to be able to pass to a strong flyhalf/inside centre area.
Blinky Bill - Bellingen said | June 17th 2008 @ 9:54am | Report comment
I like what I see so far in Burgess. His quick pass & ability to keep the opp in two minds is what we’ve needed for some time.
The other thing I like is that Nick Farr Jones is mentoring him. What a great idea this is. I wonder what can be done about making him more assertive when his forwards fail to protect him.
The good 1/2 backs that I’ve seen have been cracking the whip & smacking the rear ends of the Cattle. Maybe it’s time for one of the experienced forwards to take control and officially empower Burgess to bark at them when he needs to.
eric said | June 17th 2008 @ 10:12am | Report comment
GregC, are you serious? Ioane as inside centre? The bloke is fast, with lightening feet, but has no hands, no kicking skills, no football nous. By all means, run him off the 5/8 from blind wing, but give him any responsibility? I don’t think so.
Regarding halfbacks standing over ball at the back of a ruck, why on earth do they do it? I have never seen it work. It loses ground every time, and just gives the defence time to reorganise.
Chris Beck said | June 17th 2008 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
The refs don’t always get it wrong.
Several years back I recall seeing a game between the Highlanders and (I think) the Crusaders. Or maybe it was Otago and Canterbury. Anyway, Anton Oliver tackled the guy with the ball, and in the same fluid motion got on his feet and won the ball before anyone else could get there despite being on the “wrong” side of the line. The ref immediately yelled out “He’s OK!” or words to that effect, the TV guys immediately started in on what a good play it was for Oliver to pull off, and how the ref did a good job of promptly affirming it was legit. Well done all around.
Ben T said | June 18th 2008 @ 10:46pm | Report comment
All rugby players are great conditioned athletes but not all have speed. Burgess like Catchpole it lightning! Gregan alas never did which limited his sniping around the ruck and a key dimension to a halfbacks game. Can’t beat gas!