Discussion points from the Bledisloe Cup
Roar Guru By Greg Russell, 6 Aug 2008 Greg Russell is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- All Blacks, Bledisloe Cup, Phil Waugh, Richie McCaw, robbie deans, Rugby Union, Shane Warne, South Africa, Test match, Tour de France, wallabies
Related coverage
Before the Sydney test, there was much debate as to which captain was the bigger loss to his side, Mortlock or McCaw. After Sydney, it looked like the answer was McCaw. After Auckland, it is certain that the answer is McCaw.
Corollary of this: whither Mortlock, especially with all the leaguies (Cross, Tahu and perhaps Gasnier) coming on stream?
If rugby players are peaks on a stage of the Tour de France, then McCaw and Carter of Saturday night’s match are alone as “HC” (“above category”).
As anyone who watches cycling knows, it’s the HC peaks that determine who wins – the size of the other peaks does not really matter. Giteau aspires to be HC, but Saturday night illustrated – especially through his many ineffective kicks – that his peak is still a signfically smaller one in Carter’s shadow.
Corollary of this: whither New Zealand when Carter has his upcoming “sabbatical” in the south of France?
What is it about Eden Park?
Australia has not won there since 1986, and the harder they try, the worse it seems to get. In 2006 and 2007 the Wallabies were arguably the better side in matches there, but could not win. This time they weren’t that good, but they weren’t as bad as a 29-point defeat suggests.
If something could go wrong, it did, right down to the TMO absurdly awarding a bounced ball as a try in the last play of the game – even most Kiwis are admitting this was a ridiculous decision. I have noticed over the years that in cricket New Zealand often beats much better teams in tests at Eden Park, e.g. South Africa in 2004 and England in 2002.
It just seems to be a ground where visiting teams are cursed.
In cricket one can explain this through the weird alignment – players struggle with their bearings because of the pitch being at 45 degrees to the stands.
But in rugby?
Since a match against France in 1994, the All Blacks have not lost at what is truly a “Garden of Eden” for them.
Corollary of this: will the redevelopment of Eden Park for the 2011 World Cup undo this curse for visiting teams? Or does this history make a 2011 World Cup triumph a near certainty for the All Blacks, given that both semi-finals and the final of the event will be played at this ground?
Teams are playing matches in this year’s Trinations in 3-week blocks.
A clear trend is emerging: teams play very well in their second match (e.g. South Africa in Dunedin, Australia in Sydney, New Zealand in Auckland) and very poorly in their third match in a row (e.g. South Africa in Perth, Australia in Auckland).
I suspect a sports scientist would say that the reasons for these trends are obvious: the first week is getting into the groove, the second is optimum performance, and then by the third there is exhaustion.
Corollary of this: the next block of three is South Africa hosting New Zealand, Australia and then Australia again. If the trend continues, then South Africa will be at a peak for their first match against Australia, but by the week after the tables will be turned. So will this second South Africa-Australia clash see Australia manage a rare win in the republic?
There were so many things wrong with the selection of Phil Waugh that it is hard to know where to start:
a. Most obviously he is not an international quality 6, and probably he’s not international quality full-stop. Even if McCaw outplayed George Smith, at least Smith was very much in the game and was still one of Australia’s best players.
Waugh, on the other hand, was invisible (even allowing for his concussion).
I have maintained for a long time that Waugh’s role in international rugby is as a high-impact substitute with a specific task – usually to wreak destruction with frenzied defence – over the last 20 minutes of a match.
He’s very good at this, but that’s all. As a starting player one could argue that David Pocock is already better than Waugh.
b. Robbie Deans has successfully used two “fetchers” with the Crusaders, but that was always with positive tactical intent: to play a very fast game that tired big South African forwards.
What was he doing playing two fetchers with the purely negative tactical intent of outplaying McCaw?
In hindsight that was never going to work, because one of the things about great players is that they do not get outplayed at their own game.
This tactic would be a bit like England choosing two leg-spinners and putting on a turning wicket in the hope of outplaying Shane Warne. Or playing two beanpoles to out-jump Eales.
The way to defeat great players is to shape the game differently to the skills that make them great. This was never going to happen playing Smith and Waugh.
c. As has been widely discussed, the Australian lineout imploded, with the selection of Smith and Waugh being a major reason for this.
All of New Zealand’s first 18 points arose because of an Australian lineout malfunction (including poor defence on New Zealand’s throws), either directly or in an immediately preceding play.
And at 18-3 the match was already lost given that it was being played in Auckland (see point 3), this even though Australia had actually been playing quite well up until that point.
Who now remembers that the first five minutes of the match were completely dominated by Australia and looked like a seamless continuation of much of the Sydney test?
Love this article? Nominate it for The Roar’s Armchair Sports Writer Award. Or vote now for this week’s nominated articles.
Recommend this story.
Jim Beam Devil's Cut
As bourbon ages, a portion of liquid is lost from the barrel due to evaporation. This is known as the Angel's Share. When the bourbon is taken from the barrel, a certain amount is left trapped within the wood. It's that extracted liquid, and the rich flavours from deep within the barrel that are in Jim Beam's Devil's Cut.
Click here to learn more about Jim Beam's wicked new bourbon.
August 6th 2008 @ 8:48pm
mudskipper said | August 6th 2008 @ 8:48pm | Report comment
Chaps you know if the All Blacks had a covered stadium we might be a chance every so often…. Should we pass around the hat and buy them one…playing on a dry ground with no wind could be just the advantage the Wallabies need…to win away…
August 6th 2008 @ 9:24pm
jools-usa said | August 6th 2008 @ 9:24pm | Report comment
Nice article Greg,
I’ve always thought Waugh a bit small for Test rugby but can’t fault his intentions & effect as
sub in last 15-20 minutes.
But let’s not insult him.. He is what he is & can be mighty useful.
Jools-USA
August 6th 2008 @ 9:54pm
sheek said | August 6th 2008 @ 9:54pm | Report comment
Jools,
On your point, a clever coach looks at what each player brings & finds a role that maximises those skills. What you & others say about Waugh is true – he’s a great impact player to bring on for the last 15-20 minutes or so.
Deans had an idea last week of how to use Waugh & Smith. Unfortunately it backfired. Maybe it belongs to the category of ‘good idea – poor execution’. Not by Deans or Waugh or Smith themselves. But the failure of the team as a whole to match the AB’s intensity.
We can be forgiving. Deans isn’t the only smart kid on the block. Only last year Henry, Smith & Hanson were the ‘dream team’. Every dog has its day. The trick is to have more good days than the other dogs!
August 6th 2008 @ 11:30pm
Benjamin said | August 6th 2008 @ 11:30pm | Report comment
I agree with Sheek, the idea of playing two high-quality 7s against a player lacking game time seemed a good idea at the time. As it stands I don’t think it had any tangible effect on the end-result. Elsom is a useful tail option but no lineout giant. Palu is only marginally shorter than Elsom and only marginally heavier so it isn’t as if Australia had 3 back row players all under 6’2. The lineout is a complex machine and on the weekend it fell apart. That happens ocassionally. I think the selection of Smith and Waugh was a brave option and to lay the blame of the loss on that decision smacks of seeking a patsy. It isn’t their fault that the front five decided to come second best. Waugh had had little game time at that point and Australia had played some tough tests. The idea being that Waugh would help up the intensity. I hope to se more decisions like that from Deans.
August 6th 2008 @ 11:47pm
Peter K said | August 6th 2008 @ 11:47pm | Report comment
Sheek / Benjamin I was against Waugh and Smith starting when it was announced.
I thought it would weaken the the lineout. I wanted a big mobile aggressive runner also like Elsom. In other words I wanted a real no 6 not another 7. Thats why I said before the test we should of started with McMeniman at 6.
Using 2 opensiders never worked for Jones I did not see it working now. I hope it is not used again.
August 6th 2008 @ 11:56pm
Benjamin said | August 6th 2008 @ 11:56pm | Report comment
Peter, I don’t think it is long-term or even a consistent option but I think it had it’s merits last saturday. I think that using a player like McMeniman would have been a risk simply because he is too much of a utility player at the moment and he hasn’t played enough games in one position. The only other player in world rugby like McMeniman is Martin Corry and he spent years at no.8 before he was moved about. McMeniman needs to spend at least two seasons playing regular rugby. Nobody can say whether the Waugh-Smith tactic worked because the front 5 were so badly smashed and beceause Waugh was quite clearly out of it. I wouldn’t employ it against SA but I understand Dean’s logic.
Regarding Elsom I think that his loss was overstated. Many people noted that Australia missed him at the breakdown which I disagree with simply because he is often found out on the wing. I’m not his biggest fan.
August 7th 2008 @ 12:14am
ohtani's jacket said | August 7th 2008 @ 12:14am | Report comment
Playing Smith and Waugh worked in the 2003 World Cup semi.
Obviously McCaw’s a better player now, but he also has better support.
I agree with Benjamin that the Aussie tight five were smashed and Waugh was out of it, but I didn’t expect McCaw to play that well. McCaw was “First 3 to Breakdown” a staggering 43 times (19 in the first half, 24 in the second), made 13 tackles, assisted with 3 and missed none.
Elsom’s no Finegan, but he’s the best blindside option Australia have.
August 7th 2008 @ 12:35am
Benjamin said | August 7th 2008 @ 12:35am | Report comment
McCaw had a staggeringly good game. He made a superb tackle on Palu in the second half, and from a standing start as well. Over the past 10 years there has been a small elite of top, top performers and McCaw is certainly around the top of that group.
Elsom is too much of a headless chicken for my liking, he always seems to be near the wing and plays too loose. Like Palu he doesn’t seem too relish being on the receiving end. Whatever happened to Daniel Heenan? I think given time McMeniman will be able to play that Matt Cockbain role for Australia but at the moment Elsom is the most viable option.
August 7th 2008 @ 6:57am
sheek said | August 7th 2008 @ 6:57am | Report comment
PK,
I wouldn’t say playing Smith & Waugh together under Jones NEVER worked. They had their days in the sun. Nor would I say you shouldn’t try it on the odd occasion.
Sometimes, it’s horses for courses. If you’re suggesting (& I know you’re not) if the only reason we lost last Saturday was because Deans played Smith & Waugh, then that’s obviously crazy.
Those dastardly kiwis! Is it possible they decided to aggressively attack our lineup because we chose to play Smith & Waugh together? How dare they!
Ideally you need 3 lineout jumpers. 4 is better, but 3 is minimum. The 3rd lineout jumper can either be 6 or 8, or in odd circumstances 7. I believe Palu was the 3rd jumper? What is his height? Lifting helps these days.
Another thing, the kiwis knew Polota-Nau isn’t a good thrower, & when pressured, gets worse. He came on at a bad time, & was never allowed to get into a throwing groove. On the night, the kiwis out-enthused, out-muscled, out-energized & out-smarted us. It happens!
What disappoints me is that the Aussies knew it was coming, had a kiwi coach who told them it was coming, but on the night appeared totally unprepared to measure up.
August 7th 2008 @ 7:01am
Benjamin said | August 7th 2008 @ 7:01am | Report comment
Sheek, Palu is 6’4, has lost weight and plays for a club side with a very strong line out. No excuses there then.