By Benjamin
September 2nd 2008 @ 1:46am
Loading ...Related coverage
For the Wallabies, it’s Advance Australia bare
That’s it. The bar is dry, the food’s gone, the cupboard is empty. As a young fan enticed by late-1990s Australian rugby, the 1999 World Cup was a professional epiphany, a veritable feast of accurate, modern rugby.
Harry, Blades, Giffin, Eales, Cockbain, Wilson, Kefu, Gregan, Larkham … Super, super stuff.
From there Australia have slowly declined.
They still made the 2003 World Cup final, but instead of being trendsetters as in 1999, they progressed through that tournament driven by sheer desire and perhaps home nation fear. The general conclusion being that they had got to the final against all odds.
That final was a close affair. But the next World Cup was not so generous and Australia were on the decline.
Against that backdrop, Robbie Deans was brought in.
The anointed one apparently, Deans has an excellent coaching record and he is a pleasant, warm man. I certainly wouldn’t question his pedigree.
However, on Saturday he made some bad, bad mistakes that cost Australia dearly. Whether it will affect the Wallabies in Brisbane is another matter, but what the record capitulation also revealed is something that a lot of fans have known for a long time.
There is no depth in Australian rugby.
Connolly set out to improve the front row. He didn’t, but I don’t blame him. Props mature as they age and Holmes and Shepherdson must still be long-term priorities.
He could only work with what he had, the same as Deans: Dunning and Baxter. Let’s be frank – the pair couldn’t scrummage their way out of a pack of crisps.
Nonetheless, the fans of Deans were applauding their new ‘attitude’, a mongrel anger that was previously missing.
On Saturday, this myth was blown out of the water.
Despite a meaty weight advantage, the Australian pack was once again blasted onto the back foot. In this context, it is logical to assume that the only reason Australia managed to win that particular battle against South Africa in recent weeks is because South Africa were non-committal to the ruck.
It appears that the problem therefore is mental, and I can’t see what Deans can do if the players themselves do not want to do what is required.
The front row is still a massive issue. Deans cannot immediately remove Dunning and Baxter because they are experienced and Dunning has utility value.
Improving the front row must be a long term process, but throwing in Kepu with Robinson would be the stuff of nightmares.
Robinson is showing promise but he will not peak until he hits 30.
Vickermann and Elsom are leaving, and suddenly the Australian pack looks softer than a tub of Lurpak.
All Deans can do is maintain the status quo and persevere until a real contender offers themselves. If Holmes, Shepherdson and company truly wish to improve their game, then they should look at moving to a Guinness Premiership club for a season.
Not only does Australia not have a climate that is accommodating to propping, but there are simply not enough games in the Super 14 for players to test themselves. As much as English players would bemoan their long seasons, I am sure that Rowntree, Woodman, White, Payne and others learnt more playing 40 odd club games a season than they would have with thirteen plus provincial starts a season.
Moving TPN to prop would not be an answer and he is another player who must be persevered with… at hooker, and not at flanker and not at prop.
Throwing in is a confidence issue, and until TPN can maintain a regular starting position his bench position should be under review.
He certainly won’t perfect his trade subbing behind Freier.
At least Moore has proved himself this Tri-Nations with rugged loose performances and largely excellent throwing.
The second-row is an improvement.
Horwill and Vickermann provide an excellent combination of grunt and intelligence. The problem lies in Vickermann’s sabbatical.
McMeniman is clearly a good player, but like TPN he must be a regular starter. And he also must decide on a position. What other countries have a flanker cum lock who can dominate international games?
To that extent, he cannot be considered an automatic replacement for Vickermann. The same applies to Mumm. There is no chance of Williams, Thorn, Matfield or Botha having the occasional game at six.
One or the other: five or six.
The departure of Elsom may make that decision for him, but Australia needs a true blue second row. And urgently.
The back row, often a position of Australian strength, is now under threat of becoming maligned. After Saturday it is irrefutable that Smith is the starter and Waugh is the impact sub, unless of course Deans decides to fast track the more physical Pocock onto the bench.
Elsom will be missing this Autumn and Palu has a habit of disappearing. Who is the back up no. 8? Who plays 6? McMeniman, Mumm? But then who plays second row?
Undoubtedly there are potential greats in the Super 14, but it is one thing losing with veterans and another with young, untested players.
The 4 and 6 are the most physical elements of the pack and that loss will hurt Australia badly. Chisholm, Hoiles, or Sharpe will not remedy that.
The back division pick themselves, but as with the second and back row, there is an issue with utility players.
Starting from the back: AAC is not an international fullback. Where does he play?
It is also questionable whether Shepherd is up to the task. Latham would have excelled on the weekend.
The wings pick themselves despite Tuqiri’s sloppy skill set and lack of midfield involvement. Hynes has been perhaps the Australian find of the Tri-Nations, but again he is another young gun.
Mortlock, although receiving criticism post-South Africa, is physically the glue holding the back division together.
Cross has looked very good when called upon, but he will have to be content with a bench position.
Which leaves the 12 slot.
Barnes is unequivocally the starter, but there is always the theory that he would be better at 10 and Giteau would be better at 12. If there is more broken play under the ELVs, then surely it pays to have your more electric players further afield?
Tyrone Smith had an excellent season and I am convinced that he has a future. Tahu too.
However, it was negligent of Deans to play Tahu in an fifteen of that composition and with so little experience under his belt. When Mortlock retires, which may be sooner than later, Australia will be short of some key experiences.
If the going gets tough, Mortlock can take the ball up if need be. But how good would it be for Australia to have an alternative kicking no 12!
Barnes got injured and look what happened? No plan B.
Even Giteau is not yet a consistent international 10.
Despite that, he is Australia’s key performer. Take him and Mortlock out of the equation and there are players with a host of question marks in need of answering. And also a host of players who need to play regularly in one position: Burgess, Mitchell, Tahu, AAC, Sheperd, Turner, Ioane, Gerrard, and so on.
Burgess has abundant talent but Cordingley is departing soon and Sheehan is barely Super 14 standard.
I am convinced that Deans has taken on a much bigger job than initially expected, and until Australia recognizes that rugby union is a game of specialists, the Wallabies will always be found out when it matters most.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
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...
(98)
ohtani's jacket said | September 2nd 2008 @ 1:36am | Report comment
It’s rare that any side has a world class player in every position. The three great All Black sides of the past 20 years came close to reaching that level, but it took years to develop and their peak window was extremely small (two years max.)
What the Wallabies need is what their best teams have always had & what their ex-greats always claim — five or six world class players. Obviously you want those players in key positions — tighthead, lock, openside, first five, etc., but a couple in the forwards and a couple in the backs & everyone will play better and look better.
In his eight years tenure as Crusaders coach, Deans didn’t produce a huge number of world class Test players, but he was a feeder for the national side, & although he ended up effing up the NZ backline (as assistant backs coach), for a while there were short term results.
If that sounds ominous for Australian roarers it should! You’re trusting a Kiwi to win you a World Cup. Hasn’t happened in a long time and most of the defeated coaches (barring Mitchell) were hugely successful at the provincial level.
The fact that they hired Deans highlights a big problem with Australian rugby. There aren’t enough good coaches in the domestic set-up. If none of the Aussie coaches are good enough to coach Australia then how are they going to aid and assist Deans in the Super 14?
Let’s say that Deans wants Tahu at inside centre. Tahu needs a lot of work at his game & has to play second five for the Waratahs. Is Chris Hickey a good enough coach to teach Tahu the art of playing as a NZ style second five? Does Hickey want to play Tahu at second five if it weakens the Waratahs?
Mitchell knows New Zealand rugby & so things might happen at the Force, but I think Deans will find that not only is the depth worse in Australia but the Super 14 franchises aren’t as centralised and don’t feed into the national side in the way that the NZ system does.
MacQueen was hugely involved in Australian rugby long before he took over from Smith. He didn’t just select a side, he had a hand in shaping that side throughout the 90s. What I can’t understand about Deans is that despite being only six months on the job, he knows how abject some of these Wallabies are. Did he really think he could get Dunning and Baxter to play better? Did he think he could persist with Waugh, play Giteau at first five or any of the other criticisms NZers have had of the Australian rugby team?
If he were coaching against this Australian side, those are the match-ups he’d exploit. I know Deans has a lot of great philosophies about rugby and life & that he’s a player’s coach and all the rest, but his coaching to date has been club level coaching as far as I can tell. That makes the Wallabies a glorified club side.
Even if they win the Tri-Nations I won’t be that impressed. It’s a fine line between winning the title and going 3-3. It’s easy to say he should blow the side up and start from scratch, but at the same time the All Blacks won two big Tests with a stripped down side.
If I were Deans, I would’ve given my side a bollocking. Forget this redeeming yourself in Brisbane crap. Deans was quick to cut ties with anyone he didn’t want in his Crusaders side. He needs to be brutally honest. Based on that performance at Ellis Park, the Wallabies don’t deserve to win the Tri-Nations. It’s Test match rugby, so they may well win it, but everything that was supposedly good about Durban flew out the window faster than it did in Auckland.
I thought he should’ve rested players in case things got ugly. Never happened. Some guys had to be subbed off because of their lungs, others were just straight up swaps where there was no chance of improving the side’s hopes. Strange.
Benjamin said | September 2nd 2008 @ 2:39am | Report comment
OJ, you’re a New Zealander so you would be able to answer this for me. I’ve always been curious as to how involved Deans was in finding and developing young talent? Did he establish McCaw, Mauger etc from a young age? I know that the Crusaders had/have a good system and they got the best out of players like Ron cribb, for example, when other teams failed to but how much of that is down to Deans? Was it just a geographical coincidence that so many good players were at Canterbury?
Personally I cannot see the motivation to coach an international team at such a comparatively young age. If you are a coach you want that day-to-day contact with players, and a real opportunity to change bad habits etc. It must be extremely frustrating not to have that any more. Hewett and Somerville were never world beaters and look at how much better they were for the Crusaders than for the ABs. The same is true of Dunning and Baxter.
Jerry said | September 2nd 2008 @ 6:28am | Report comment
Benjamin – Mauger played for NZ Secondary Schools, U-19 & U-21s, McCaw played for both the U-19s & U-21s (and was selected for the All Blacks at 20), so both of them were in the system from a pretty young age. Both the Crusaders and the Canterbury union would have an academy that develops age group players, but I’m not sure how much Deans was directly involved in that.
Deans is very good at developing young talent into solid S14 players or legitimate stars though. It’s a bit of a chicken/egg thing though – the Crusaders were already 2 time champs when he took over with a solid core of stars and seasoned veterans. But he’s developed enough players since then to suggest that it’s no coincidence that the Crusaders unearthed so many talented players.
Benjamin said | September 2nd 2008 @ 7:02am | Report comment
Jerry, I’ll bear that in mind.
Deans is obviously a very good coach, but the more I think about it, the less it makes sense for him to leave to take charge of Australia. I just can’t see the logic. If he performs badly then that will undermine his All Black credentials.
Davo said | September 2nd 2008 @ 7:18am | Report comment
Lets not get so introspective we want to slash our wrists after one ( all be it massive ) loss. The stars were in alignment to suggest the Aussies wouldnt win….they’d effectively done their job which was winning a game in Sth Africa. They were tired. It was at altitude, the game had no bearing on the final position of the Tri Nations table and most importantly Saf for this match were desperate, hungry,humilated and angry. Australia approached this match in a self satisfied, lax mood and when things started so badly – down two tries in 12 mins, they couldnt summon the mental hunger or physical aptitude to do anything much about it.
Given Australia provided one Super 14 finalist, the Force had a decent year, the Brumbies struggled with injury but unearthed ( as did the Force ) a lot of promising players, I’m prepared to say there is still depth in Australian rugby. The performance this season of Aust A was also heartening even though the opposition was admittedly poor.
Can guys like Blades and Cockbain truly be rated as “super” international players ? I’m not so sure. I personally feel there is plenty of depth in Australian rugby in the centres, in the 2nd row – guys like Kimlin and the two Aust U21 players from the Force, and in the backrow I wouldnt write off Hoiles, Houston, Brown as being able to make a strong international career, Pocock is a champion and Palu is still only 25-26, has the odd quiet game sure, but could eventually be lauded as being as good as Kefu.
Front row I dont have any answers – except I dont see why TPN couldnt have a crack at a prop spot. Personally I wouldnt mind seeing a NSW front row next year of Kepu, Frier and TPN.
Benjamin said | September 2nd 2008 @ 7:38am | Report comment
Davo, there has been a lot of hyperbole and excessive reactions to the various games so far. However I think it is accurate to say that SA were never as bad as their form suggested and that Australia’s victories had been overplayed a tad. As much as Australia were up against things before the second test had even begun there is no way that a team with serious aspirations should lose by so much. Credit to SA but the reality is that they did not have to do a great deal to win that game.
I also agree tha there is depth in Australian rugby but significantly it is untested and callow. If Giteau were to get injured then Australia would be in trouble. There is no real comptetition and that translates across the squad. Sharpe could be dropped because Horwill and Vickermann were more effective but Dunning and Baxter cannot be dropped. Tuqiri could never realistically be dropped, neither could Palu or Moore or even Smith. Hoiles is a glorified 7s player and Houston is not quite the dynamo a lof of people thought he might be. The majority of players who would have to be called upon are very young and that would necessitate a lot of growing pains. If TNP were moved to prop then straightaway his running game would be greatly diminished. Deans is hostage to a group of senior players as it stands.
Cockbain and Blades were not necessarily super players, but they were part of a super team that physically was no better, and perhaps worse, than a lot of opposing nations. 1999 was the last major tournament where Australia punched above it’s weight regularly and successfully.
johnny boy said | September 2nd 2008 @ 8:24am | Report comment
I seem to recall the Crusaders not infrequently having a ‘dud’ game as they neared Super 14 finals. Deans knows that no team can keep it up all the time, especially in Super 14. It’s bloody tough. So you might as well ‘experiment’ or throw a few new boys in while you can to give them experience (TPN for example who wont be in the squad next year if he refuses to master lineout throwing). And especially given Australia’s relatively shallow depth of talent
If the result is irrelevant to the overall scheme of things – you might as well take the opportunity give your team a ’spur’ for the real thing. Wallabies will come out firing in Brisbane to take the Bledisloe and Tri-Nations. They wouldnt dare otherwise. As Henry and DeVilliers have found, fear is the ultimate motivator
Ben C said | September 2nd 2008 @ 9:47am | Report comment
Lurpak?
Given Vickerman is leaving, Mumm and Caldwell will likely be the starting locks for the Waratahs so it seems Mumm may go down the path of No. 5 while McMeniman should be left at No. 6. I expect on the EOYT and next year it will be Mumm and Kimlin vying for the No. 5 slot with the other to take the bench as lock/flanker cover.
ohtani's jacket said | September 2nd 2008 @ 9:49am | Report comment
Benjamin,
McCaw made a name for himself in the 1998 secondary school rugby final & received a scholarship to the rugby programme at Lincoln University in Christchurch. From there he began playing provincial rugby for Canterbury in 1999. Deans was the NPC coach at the time, but McCaw had been touted from secondary school.
Carter was a Christchurch product through and through. He went to Christchurch Boys’ High School & made his provincial debut out of High School Old Boys RFC. He was part of the Crusaders Development side in 2002 and was the top point-scorer for New Zealand at the under-21 World Championship in South Africa.
It’s not really a case of being discovered. They both came up through the grades in representative rugby.
True Tah said | September 2nd 2008 @ 9:54am | Report comment
OJ,
through Deans coaching, Scott Hamilton ultimately ended up wearing the black jersey…he was a player who only made his schools 3rd XV.
If Deans can do that with a guy like Hamilton, then I am optimistic with what he can do with someone the likes of say Lachie Turner, who has more talent in his pinky finger than Hamilton has in his entire body.
ohtani's jacket said | September 2nd 2008 @ 10:06am | Report comment
There’s no question that Deans is worthy of an international coaching job. He’s wanted the All Blacks job since 2001 and paid his dues at the provincial level over the course of 12 years. I’m not sure if the Wallabies job will hurt his credentials. Henry and Hansen weren’t hurt by their stints in Wales.
It’s this particular board who were never hire him as coach. The next coach of the All Blacks will be Steve Hansen, either in 2010 or 2012. That has always been the succession plan. If Hansen does succeed Henry, Wayne Smith will probably go offshore. So long as Tew and Hobbs (Deans’ brother-in-law) are in charge, this is the future.
ohtani's jacket said | September 2nd 2008 @ 10:19am | Report comment
True Tah,
Well Hamilton played for Deans’ old club… He’s a good example of a Crusaders player who was selected for the All Blacks on the basis of being a Canterbury player.
Lachie Turner is fast, but Deans won’t have the biggest hand in his development. That duty belongs to the Waratahs coaching staff. If I were John O’Neill, I would’ve had Deans coach the Waratahs for a season or two.
Peter K said | September 2nd 2008 @ 10:32am | Report comment
Benjamin – Nothing has changed.
Australia has never had large depth, at best they have had a very good or great XV, and reasonable bench.
Injuries etc always hit us harder. During McQueens day he could not have dropped his big name players either, not enough depth then either.
The problem at tighthead has been that way ever since Darwin was injured. Astounding we never developed one since then. Baxter and Dunning are our only tightheads, Shepherdson is even worse. Kepu is a loosehead so is Alexander. Blake needs to learn in France and come back quick.
Mongrel is the key point, we had lots of hardmen in the days of Finegan etc, and that is the problem.
Horwill, Elsom, McMeniman and Vickerman and maybe Waugh look forward and want the hard confrontation.
We are loosing Elsom and Vickerman. McMeniman is always injured, and he is really a 6, has not played lock for Qld for 2 years so he suffered starting at 5, Waugh may be past his best and battle worn.
Palu might not be seen but stats show he has the highest work rate and makes more metres and runs more than any other Wallaby.
The front row is soft and does not relish the confrontation and that is a big issue. Moore is too loose.
We will be left with Horwill and McMeniman and maybe Palu (if he is involved so much he has to be willing) willing to fight every time and thats not enough.
sheek said | September 2nd 2008 @ 11:03am | Report comment
Benjamin,
Peter K makes many pertinent points. I never saw Deans as a messiah. However, I saw him as the best man for the job, better than any Australian that put his hand up for the job, or was remotely interested.
I still believe he is the best man for the job. Coaches, & players, don’t become monkeys on the evidence of one, or two, or even three disasters. I take the alternate view of what has happened – what the disasters in Auckland & Jo’burg demonstrated, is that the Wallabies are still an ordinary team that have been coaxed by a canny coach to play above themselves on most occasions this season.
So, in other words, what happened last Saturday in Jo’burg, & previously in Auckland, were necessary corrections. Bringing a team back to somewhere where it really belonged!
Peter K mentions lack of depth. Australian rugby is struggling to understand that whatever structure allowed them to succeed up to the turn of the century won’t help us into the future. As rugby becomes more international & more competitive, we’re going to require greater depth of playing numbers, & better progression structures than we presently have.
You often hear people say “we won the RWC in 1991 & 1999 with the current structures in place, so why change”? Well, it might have been good enough for ‘91 & ‘99, but it won’t be good enough into the future. Of course, i’m talking about increased player depth & a vaible national comp.
We might also need a frontrow school to fast-track quality props. Indeed, we might need a national academy, not these state run affairs, where ex-International specialists pass on the techniques that made them successful.
Peter K said | September 2nd 2008 @ 11:09am | Report comment
IMO better to send the young props on 2 year sabbaticals to Europe to learn the propping trade.
Academy is not hard and mongrel enough. Need to learn against cheats in the real world.
ohtani's jacket said | September 2nd 2008 @ 11:15am | Report comment
Yeah but last year the Wallabies pushed the All Blacks hard at Eden Park and the Boks hard in Cape Town. So somethings not quite right with either Deans’ coaching or his Test selections.
Peter K said | September 2nd 2008 @ 11:25am | Report comment
OJ – But this year we won in Durban and had bigger wins at home against the AB’s and Boks so it could be argued the results are better.
This year we still have a chance to in the TN’s with 1 game to go, thats a better result.
ohtani's jacket said | September 2nd 2008 @ 11:51am | Report comment
The extended Tri-Nations has brought about that chance. I’m pretty sure that if this was a World Cup year that NZ would have retained the Bledisloe and won the Tri-Nations on points differential. Unless the Wallabies win at Brisbane, that would’ve been a better result.
Mark said | September 2nd 2008 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
OJ – Carter played for Ellesmere (sp?) & only went to CBHS for his final year at school. There were claims of player poaching but nothing was ever proved & knowing ChCh you don’t need smoke for people to say tehre’s a fire !.
Harry said | September 2nd 2008 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
OJ I can assure you as a Wallaby supporter things are better off than they were last year, and the year before that, and the year before that (8 losses in a row in 05 from memory). We got smacked on the weekend but while unpleasant these things happen to Aus rugby with our poor depth and lackadaisical attitude.
OJ also there is an absolutely massive difference between pushing hard and actually winning. I’d far rather take 1 overseas win and 2 hammerings then 3 narrow losses.
Brisbane will be interesting … the fact is in this 3N we have seen some huge turnarounds from one fixture to the next … New Zealand from Sydney to Auckland, SA from Durban to Joburg, Aus from Auckland to Joburg. Can Aus keep this pattern going? If Vickerman was playing I’d say we would have had an about even chance, but with him (and barnes) missing NZ are clear favourites.
Had you have given me these results to date at the start of the year I wouldn’t have hesitated to take them, regardless of the result in Brissy.
Mark said | September 2nd 2008 @ 1:33pm | Report comment
Thank you Harry…”NZ are clear favourites” ……you do realise that is the kiss of death (also known as the favourites tag) for the TN. Better go put some money on the Wallabies (but please don’t tell anyone I’m betting on the ‘enemy’.
Cheers
Mark
Harry said | September 2nd 2008 @ 1:40pm | Report comment
Mark NZ never lose really big pressure matches eh. Have faith in your team and accept the favourites tag!
Mark said | September 2nd 2008 @ 1:43pm | Report comment
Ouch Harry ouch……..well no matter who wins it promises to be a cracker, wounded Wallabies vs an AB side who seem to have got their balance right. only 2 weeks to go…..life’s going to be boring with the TN over.
Harry said | September 2nd 2008 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
It will indeed be boring Mark.
NZ’s record against the Wallabies in Brisbane is extremely good – I can only recall one loss there- the RIchard Loe elbow test in 92. Though karma still awaits you Kiwi’s for the infamous penalty try given by Kev Crowe which robbed us gallant Australians in 1968!
ohtani's jacket said | September 2nd 2008 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
Didn’t know that about Carter, Mark.
Still, you’d have to say those coaches at CBHS do a pretty amazing job given they produced Mehrtens, Mauger and Carter.
I’m from Auckland so I don’t know too much about Christchurch apart from the fact that Deans was a Christ’s College boy
Mark said | September 2nd 2008 @ 2:07pm | Report comment
OJ – Only found out about it through a press article on Akl schools poaching players. Although if you understand the rivalry between Christ’s (top private Boys school in ChCh) and CBHS (only state Boys school in ChCh) then you’ll see the humour in Deans coaching the CBHS guys. They have had police at the CBHS/Christ’s 1st 15 games for the last 20 yrs, never more than a couple of old boys arrested but you can count on some niggling off the pitch. \
ohtani's jacket said | September 2nd 2008 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
I suppose Deans must’ve headed along to a few of those games. He must’ve had some kind of handle on who the promising secondary school players were, though Carter didn’t make any rep teams in secondary school as far as I’m aware.
old goalie said | September 2nd 2008 @ 4:33pm | Report comment
Deans is the man, no mistake
it’s a marathon, not a sprint
Sam Taulelei said | September 2nd 2008 @ 4:44pm | Report comment
Call me the eternal optimist but as confident as I was that SA would turn it around at Ellis Park, the same goes for Australia in Brisbane.
Last weekend was a terrible result but importantly they still have a chance to redeem their season and win the Tri-Nations and place one hand on the Bledisloe. Deans has shown better than any other provincial coach that he knows how to pace a team to win tournaments. The key point of playing in a tournament is that as long as you stay alive to play the next game you have a chance to improve upon your last performance. Your last game doesn’t necessarily have any bearing on your next game, witness any number of games at the last world cup eg. England v SA in pool play.
This is a true knockout game, winner almost takes all and in these types of games you’re always in with a chance and I’m certainly not writing off Australia’s chances.
They have two weeks to correct their technical deficiencies from their last game which is more than enough, but of more importance will be the mental aspect. There will be so much hype and expectation built up for this game that Deans and Henry will be working harder to ensure they keep their players minds focused and their bodies primed so that they don’t play the game in their heads before they take the field which is always a risk.
I agree with the points made by Benjamin as well as the responses from Sheek and Peter K on the current state of Australian rugby but for a country where the game is at best ranked fourth among winter codes, Aussies continue to surprise and amaze me at how well they punch above their weight.
OJ, Mark I’m not from ChCh but I attended Wellington College and we participated in an annual quadrangular college tournament involving CHBHS and had annual fixtures against Christs College and I know how bitter the rivalry is between the two schools, it’s part of the reason why they’re so consistently successful and produce such fine talent.
Mark said | September 2nd 2008 @ 4:51pm | Report comment
Sam,
I’m with you, there’s no way in h**l the Wallabies can play THAT poorly two games in a row. Still going for the AB’s as Harry points out it’s a good ground for NZ, both teams will have had a rest & plenty of tiem to work on tactics. But while I think it’ll be another 10-15 point game I can’t pick who it’ll be even though I’m hoping for the AB’s.
Old Goalie, you’ve got the right bloke there, he’s 1-1 against the AB’s so far & 2-1 against the Boks. Give him the Summer tour to work out some more palyers, some input into the S14 & next year should be even better for the Wallabies.
Sam Taulelei said | September 2nd 2008 @ 5:01pm | Report comment
I wonder what the odds offered on a draw would be?
Now that would really setup the Bledisloe match in Hong Kong wouldn’t it, winner takes all – and most of us who can’t travel to Honkers to watch it will have to be content to sit in front of the box.
Oh well as Bill Heslop always said “you can’t stop progress”
ohtani's jacket said | September 2nd 2008 @ 5:27pm | Report comment
I think the All Blacks should win it since they have the better pack, but it’s a matter of executing & part of that is taking the sting out of the Wallabies. It’s up to us to break this pattern of turnarounds, though the Wallabies winning would make a better story.
Benjamin said | September 2nd 2008 @ 6:08pm | Report comment
Peter, I would argue that the 99 pack only had Finegan and Kefu as enforcers, and Finegan was a bench player. There are angrier players in this current pack but they just don’t seem to do their job as the 99 lot. I can’t see what the problem can be?
Dunning best illustrates what I believe are the core problems of Australian rugby – why did Jones change him to tighthead? I am convinced that Australian rugby has too many utility players. For example, TPN cannot throw and so various people on different threads have suggested moving him to flanker or prop, others have suggested moving Waugh to hooker. What is AAC’s best position? Are Mumm and McMeniman flankers or locks? Giteau and Barnes – who should be the 10, and who should be the 12? Is Hynes an out and out winger? Even a player like SKK – what is his best position?
Palu has the physical abilites to do what Spies does. He may have a high work rate but so does So’oialo – the difference being that So’oialo doesn’t need to play a traditional 8 man role whereas Palu does. Apart from an occasional big tackle I believe that Palu is happy to do the unseen bits. Instead he should be dragging his team onto the front foot and setting a physical example.
Sam, I think the WC is an isolated case, and runs like England made are exceptions rather than the rule. I firmly believe in the tenet that you are only as good as your last game.
Peter K said | September 2nd 2008 @ 6:27pm | Report comment
Benjamin – The 99 squad had forwards like Crowley, Cockbain, Foley, Finegan, Harry, Kearns, Kefu, Noriega, Robinson, Wilson, Williams.
I could easily argue most of them are harder and just that little bit more mongrel than the 2008 counterpart. I never said we needed more enforcers. Instead of mongrel I probably should of said harder, the guys that loved the physical confrontation.
Compare Crowley, Noriega and Harry to our props, Foley and Kearns to Moore and PN, Cockbain to McMeniman, Finegan to Elsom, Kefu and Williams to Palu, Robinson and Wilson to Smith and Waugh.
Sam Taulelei said | September 2nd 2008 @ 6:37pm | Report comment
Benjamin
We’ll agree to differ as I always believe that you’re only as good as your next game and there has been such undulating form in this years Tri-Nations that you couldn’t expect Australia to play as poorly again. I only used England as one example, France is another – fantastic in the quarterfinal, ordinary in the semifinal.
The Crusaders this year lost to the Highlanders and the Chiefs before the finals and the critics were circling expecting them to come undone in the playoffs. Sure Super 14 can’t be compared to test rugby but my point is that a past performance doesn’t necessarily predict a repeat performance.
Peter K said | September 2nd 2008 @ 6:45pm | Report comment
Benjamin – Specialists verse utility.
Robinson, Moore, PN, Vickerman, Horwill, Elsom, Waugh, Smith, Palu, Burgess, Tuqiri, Mortlock and Hynes are all specialists.
You need at least 1 prop who can play both sides to be on the bench. Our tightheads for a long time have been really weak. So they thought that maybe Dunning could be converted from loosehead, it was worth trying since he was the strongest guy they had.
McMeniman, Mumm have both played lock and flanker. McMeniman has been out a lot with injury so on return has been shuffled around to suit the team needs. Mumm has only had 1 season.
Giteau used to be a specialist 12 but since we did not groom a replacement for Larkham one had to be found. To my mind Giteau is stil a better 12 and Barnes a specialist 10 should be moved to 10. Only this year to enhance his Wallabies chances was Barnes used at 12, and so Cooper could play at 10.
AC is really a 13 but playing at Brumbies Mortlock has that spot and has been moved according to need between wing and F/B.
It comes down to lack of depth. We choose our best 15 available players and find spots for them because we do not have 2 great / very good players in every position.
ohtani's jacket said | September 2nd 2008 @ 7:24pm | Report comment
Sam,
I don’t think the All Blacks to win by as big a margin as the Boks, but I think if the Wallabies do lose it’ll be for the same reasons they lost in Auckland & Johannesburg. Sure they have two weeks to work on their set pieces and defensive drills, but when you have to put such a big effort into gaining parity you’re already on the back foot.
Would be one of the great Wallaby Test match victories, though, no matter how they get it.
Benjamin said | September 2nd 2008 @ 10:15pm | Report comment
Peter, I would use the Jim Telfer analogy and say those players were honest. They wouldn’t have intimidated many teams (although Finegan’s cameo against France in the 99 WC final would suggest otherwise) but they did what was asked and expected of them. The current Australian back five is huge and probably more powerful than the 99 squad.
Is it better to have a team of specialists or a team of your best players? I see your point but there seems to be a modern fixation with trying to change players positions, to give them different abilities and I don’t agree with it. Your point about Mumm only playing 1 seasons illustrates that point I think. At that young age he should have cemented one position and attempt to develop later in his career. The Australian xv is much like the England football team trying to play Gerrard and Lampard together. I also think that to an extent there is good depth man for man, especially in the backs; Smith/Tahu/Barnes – Mortlock/Cross/AAC – Tuqiri/Mitchell/Turner/AAC/Hynes … but a handful of those players play in various positions for their clubs.
I’m not sure about Tuqiri being a specialist because he has played centre, likewise Hynes has played full back and although a very clever footballer he doesn’t have out-and-out wing gas.
Sam, I agree. A bad performance does not logically mean that another will follow. However with a break this week I feel that Deans could have brought some different players in (kickers specifically) and retained Moore and Smith. Being crushed like that cannot have been particularly pleasant for the team and they now have to wait two weeks to get that out of their system. Had Deans treated that game as a must win then the outcome may have been different. I have never been a great fan of Woodward but I do agree with his philosophy that you always play your best xv and worry about the next game after.
Mark said | September 3rd 2008 @ 10:02am | Report comment
PeterK/Benjamin -the traditional role of the enforcer/mongrel has changed. What Finnegan got away with on Bunce in one test (something like 8 unanswered punches on a player who just covered up although apparently Bunce threw an elbow to fend the tackle) would result in a fairly big time off the field these days. I always thought Finnegan was a good player who let himself down by being too much of a thug. Now if you want mongrel look at the guys in your histoiry like Gould, one heck of a FB, great defence, pace, & kicking, didn’t particpate in thuggery, but would defend himself beautifully as he proved against Mark ‘cowboy’ Shaw in one game when cowboy thought he’d put Gould off his game by punching him. If I remember correctly Gould won on a clear cut points decision & Cowboy didn’t try it again !
OJ – I’m with you, if the Wallabies lose it’ll be because of the scrum/lineout/ruck& maul so whoever has better set piece & a better balanced loose forward trio will win.
Jerry said | September 3rd 2008 @ 10:20am | Report comment
Mark – It was Micheal Brial who threw all those punches at Bunce.
Mark said | September 3rd 2008 @ 10:24am | Report comment
Jerry – thanks for the correction…my apologies to any Finnegan fans for any incorrect slight on his character
True Tah said | September 3rd 2008 @ 10:41am | Report comment
Mark,
Brial didn’t land any punches on Bunce…which is just as well, because I think Bunce would have knocked his block off…he KO’d a young Toutai Kefu once.
Roger said | September 3rd 2008 @ 11:31am | Report comment
Wow Benjamin, methinks you are revelling in the Wallabies loss on weekend. All this after Aus winning 3 out of 5 Tri nations games with decider at home…nice try at stirring the pot though! Amazing that there is this reaction from Aussie Roarers after 1 bad loss when last week we were backing them in…what I have read on the Roar since Sat makes me think of a witch hunt (Salem anyone?).
Lets all keep some pespective. If we are willing to make such broad generalisations about teams then pretty much every team is in trouble with ENG, IRE, WALES, SA and NZ also playing some shockers this season. Lets all relax and enjoy the ebb and flow of international rugby. Sure each team has their weaknesses (ENG – inside backs, AUS – props, NZ – inside centre and injuries to McCaw), but this is what makes it all interesting. Now before you say England were injury depleted lets mention the loss Vickerman, Latham, Shepherd, Barnes Burgess from the last game…gettit?
The old English jibes that ‘no-one in the Aussie team has the intimidation factor’, or ‘No one in World rugby fears the Aussie pack’ is rubbish pot stirring. Mark Regan might have said some pretty oafish things after the world cup, but I didnt havent seen or heard anyone repeat what he has said. Yes, Australia has had some poor scrum experiences in 2006 and 2007. Yes, we need depth at tighthead prop, yes, we need depth at 12, but suggestions that they arent respected is ridiculous. I have never heard anyone say they were ’scared’ of the ABs or Wales, or England (Sheridan aside) so why do we say Wallabies are deficient if no one saying they are scary? Having 50 pts put on you is a different scary to that we are all discussing, and dirty players aside, I dont think any players in international rugby are actaully apprehensive about playing eachother.
Other than some poor games against England where ENG flooded the ruck with 8 men and Wallabies kept 3 forwards in backs (yes slow learners) and a terrible UK tour a few years ago, Wallabies are battling on fine. Some perspective please, and Roarers’, don’t take the bait so easily next time Benjamin seeks Schadenfruede http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude in the undulations in form of the Wallabies.
Peter K said | September 3rd 2008 @ 8:39pm | Report comment
I wrote the wrong thing. I want hard men, willing and looking forward to the physical confrontations, not some of the soft guys we have now. The 99 forwards were far harder.
I don’t want thugs , and I used the wrong term when I said mongrel.
Benjamin said | September 3rd 2008 @ 8:51pm | Report comment
Erm.. no Roger… not at all.
Firstly I wouldn’t say ‘revelling’ because the article is hardly cynical or offensive. Australia had previously performed well on the gainline – which obviously is the key to success in any type of rugby – but on Saturday they were blown away again, which shows the shallowness of all improvements. Furthermore it made me realise what trouble they might be in given that two of the packs toughest players are heading north. FYI I actually backed Australia to beat NZ and SA.
Your comment about generalisations is wildly innacurate Roger. Perhaps you have forgotten how close Ireland came to beating Australia and also the performance they gave against NZ. You might also have forgotten Wales second performance against SA – and it should be noted that Wales had far more players missing than Australia did last week. The ‘generalisations’ about Australia having poor depth are true as far as I’m concerned. Wales, England ,NZ, SA all have greater strength in depth. McCaw may be hard to replace but NZ have Braid, Latimer, Messam, Thompson and So’oialo – who can replace Giteau? Is it Cooper or Beale? Get what exactly?
I wouldn’t say that many players are scared of each other but I’m sure that a lot of packs would prefer to play Australia’s than NZ or SA’s. If this is feeble Australian chauvinism then it is a pretty poor effort. It’s all well and good saying 2006 and 2007 but if you want to be accurate then Australia have not had a pack since 1999/2000. The fact of the matter is that Australia do not have out and out second rows, minus Horwill, no blindside flanker replacment, no 8 man replacement, no scrum half replacement, no fly half or inside centre replacement, or no full back replacement… gettit?
You clearly miss the point of this article, but then there is always one.
Benjamin said | September 3rd 2008 @ 8:57pm | Report comment
Peter, I’m not sure if they were harder per se. Foley, Giffin, Cockbain and Kefu were all involved in some weak performances against England so I think the conclusion must be that as a unit they were all mentally harder which they lacked whencertain players retired. Perhaps it will take a few seasons worth of playing together but this current Australian pack is huge which suggests that mentally there is an issue, if that can be overcome then they have all the physical tools.
Roger said | September 4th 2008 @ 9:17am | Report comment
Think I hit a nerve…if you are going to put article’s out there like that champ, expect some criticism….
I really have to disagree that Australia’s depth is that much worse than any other country…England’s supposed depth in NZ was appalling, SA has been found wanting in several positions the whole tournament, and NZ struggle in several positions too. The NZ players you mentioned to back up McCaw are not ready yet. Braid was invisible in his game recently. I hope you recall their 12 and 9 problems recently…they also called up a centre to play wing!
I would also disagree with your statements re individual positions….it seems you are in a room all by yourself with this view echo echo?) as pretty much every other thread on rugby on blog is talking about Mumm (who played most of s14 season at 5) and Kimlin backup 2nd rowers, McMeniman going straight into 6, plenty of good young HBs behind Burgess incl Homles and Genia (U20), and countless fullbacks who are keen for a run. There are huge amounts of backup backrowers around with Brown, Hoiles, Chapman, Horua, Hodgson, Pockcock, Robinson etc.
So as I see it we are left with what we all pretty much agree with…some young 10’s who needb another season of S14, and trouble with depth at tighthead prop and inside center…I mean, you said in another blog words to the effect that even though you didnt like Woodward, you liked how he always played his best team…so if wallabies dont change lineup, how are these players going to get a run…see the circularity of your premise…you want hardened backup players but still want the same team to play every week…?
I think that there is some middle ground here where we can both feel like we are right,…yes, Australia has some SERIOUS depth issues in certain positions…yes, other countries also have serious depth issues in certain positions…yes, Australia’s depth issues at tighthead prop are more visisble than opther positions because of the occassional scrum problems but rarely turnovers (see 1 tighthead on weekend).
We can argue all day about whether there is depth, whether depth is quality, whether potential means quality depth, but I just don’t agree that we are in much of a better position than anyone else…we just need a better front row.
Roger said | September 4th 2008 @ 10:02am | Report comment
Sorry Benjamin, last sentence should read “…but i just don’t agree that we in much of a WORSE position…”, …over to you!
Bring Back Melon said | September 4th 2008 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
Do other countries play players out of position as much as we do? It doesn’t seem like it to me.
Most posters on blogs like these seem to have no qualms about suggesting things like:
– Changing Tatafu Polotu-Nau to a prop
– Changing props from loose- to tight-head and visa versa
– Considering every position between 5 and 8 to be virtually interchangeable
– Interchanging 10 and 12
– Interchanging 12 and 13 (but never 13 and 10 interestingly)
– Some much wilder things that I won’t bother to mention (Waugh at hooker, Smith as 5/8)
I don’t think we used to do this in Australia. Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I think the floodgates opened when Larkam successully moved from 15 to 10 many years ago.
What’s wrong with picking the best inside centre to play inside centre for Australia and, when he gets injured, call up the 2nd best inside centre?
I know they may not have trained with the squad but…
I think people just want to show off how creative and what good ‘lateral thinkers’ they are. It might be a good idea to try some of these things during dead rubber Super 14 games (or lower) but to expect players to break with their instincts and pick up the nuances of new positions is a huge ask.
Even traditionally interchangeable roles like left- and right-wingers and fullback I think is an ask. There is more to these positions than being fast runners, good passers, kickers, etc.
Benjamin said | September 4th 2008 @ 8:57pm | Report comment
Roger,
i. England’s performances in NZ reflected the fact that the majority of that team had played a 50 week season. It also reflected the stewardship of Rob Andrew. In that whole tour England practices half and hour of back moves. England have finalied their EPS system, compensation with the clubs and their conditioning windows. For the first time ever England will soon be on a level footing with the SH nations… however, regarding depth England, under the right management, could pick about 45 players of genuine quality. We will have to see how they go under Johnson but they certainly have the players. 10 teams to pick from and only 30% are non-qualified.
ii. NZ struggled because Oliver, Hayman, Jack, Rawlinson, Collins, Kelleher, Evans, Howlett, Tuitopou, Mauger, McAlister and Gear all left. Apart from an early 3N blunder they appear to now be firing on all cylinders. I agree that SA don’t have great depth but that is due to their S14 coaching. Btw, Braid was clearly not match fit in the game you refer too and NZ picked Kahui to play wing simply because Tuitavake was a selction error and Rokocoko has been injured. I think Henry’s rationale is that Kahui will always be the reserve no. 13 so better to give him serious game time at some point, lest Smith get injured.
iii. No, I’m not in a room by myself. It isn’t as simple as Mumm and McMeniman being automatic selections. If Mumm went straight into the 2nd row how many caps would he and Horwill have? Mumm is phsyically too callow and McMeniman is either/or. What is he a 6 or 5? Holmes and Genia aren’t setting the S14 alight, they are just as immature (in rugby terms) as Cooper and Beale. You cannot throw young players into a team willy nilly – that is the point of this article. Vickermann and Elsom go and the spine has been taken out of the squad and realistically there are no replacements of commensurate ability.
iv. I completely agree with Bring Back Melon. I think that Australian rugby has tried to overcompensate for its playing base by attempting to innovate – perhaps it is a rugby league influence also? Who is the back up 8? Who is the back up hooker – TNP can’t throw? Who is the long-term tighthead? Who is the long term no. 5? Who is the replacement 6? Who is the replacement 8, 12, 15? If you go through all of the Australian S14 sides and point out how many players are specialists in only one position I think that you’d be surprised.
v. I am not a fan of Woodward but I agree with his premise that you play your best team. I haven’t at any point said that Australia must employ a roation policy, but you play your best xv each week, perhaps the occasional change – horses for courses, and give the subs 20 minutes, and after 10 tests you have a core squad. Who should Australia play though? Sheehan, Hoiles, Mumm? Not looking good.
ohtani's jacket said | September 4th 2008 @ 9:22pm | Report comment
At the end of the day none of these problems will be solved in 8 days. It’s something for Deans to work on over the next two years. I agree that it doesn’t look great, but he has to field some kind of team.
Benjamin said | September 4th 2008 @ 9:47pm | Report comment
That’s true, but I can’t help but feel that the provincial coaches have been doing the ARU a disservice with the way they continue to play specific players in differing positions.
Westy said | September 4th 2008 @ 10:44pm | Report comment
Benjamin……..shoosh………… do not tell any one but it is because we do not have enough depth in certain positions. Our super 14 coaches have to respond to this reality.
Westy said | September 4th 2008 @ 10:59pm | Report comment
Benjamin…………..as you are aware the Super 14 coaches have a responsibility to their franchises to provide a competitive team in the super 14 competition. They are not training academies for Wallabies selection
We buy league players because we do not produce enough quality players of our own. In Sydney’s 12 team premier club rugby there are basically two teams who can tackle. For the bottom 7 teams they leak nearly 50 points a game . In our U/19 first grade scores we have scores of 79 /102/126/ to nil problem is there all different teams. I always have to hesitate when you discuss the superior defence of rugby. it is very rarely on display in our elite district competition and this is the source of our future super 14 players.
Benjamin said | September 4th 2008 @ 11:28pm | Report comment
Westy, with no relegation all S14 provincial sides are feeder squads for the national sides. Even though that is never the official line.
However even with a necessity for being competative why does SKK not have a settled position? Why doesn’t AAC? Why was Mitchell being played at fb ahead of Sheperd? Why has Staniforth been shunted across positions when he had an excellent run at12? I do think Mitchell is the biggest culprit but there is a tendency in Australian rugby to constantly challenge players in other positions. A decathlete 100 metre runner will always lose to a single event 100 metre runner, if you catch my drift. Potentially Australia could have genuine contenders at 12 and 13 across the board if they just settled their teams. Likewise in the back row.
ohtani's jacket said | September 5th 2008 @ 12:47am | Report comment
It’s a catch 22 with Australian rugby.
They won’t produce better players until they have a domestic comp, but they can’t generate interest in a domestic comp unless the Wallabies are hugely successful.
New Zealand rugby’s in even more of a bind. The Super 14 is killing provincial rugby, but without News Ltd. money they can’t afford to keep the top players in the country. The decline in popularity of the Super 14 just goes to show how short sighted the whole SANZAR arrangement was.
The sooner they adopt the European model the better.
Sam Taulelei said | September 5th 2008 @ 12:51am | Report comment
Benjamin
I agree. The Super 14 sides are feeders into the national team. As OJ and Jerry have mentioned before the NZ sides do coordinate their programs with the national coaching panel and Graham Henry has made their resources available to all the franchises so that other players and not just the All Blacks benefit eg. Mike Cron the scrum coach.
There isn’t the same unified approach in Australia or in SA either. Jake White was quoted in stating that he would have loved to follow Graham Henry’s approach in removing his top players from playing Super 14 rugby in 2007 but the individual franchises wouldn’t have a bar of it but they agreed to provisionally resting those players he requested. Smart cookies.
Benjamin said | September 5th 2008 @ 2:50am | Report comment
OJ/Sam, it is a catch 22. Rugby in Australia is top down, as opposed to grass roots up. In England the National Division 1 is improving rapidly so a lot of teams are picking from below. However there is also the problem that if you have relegation in domestic rugby that the rugby played becomes very conservative. Therefore that model isn’t necessarily to the good of the national game. A domestic game is a long term necessity in Australia but like you say – that requires interest which comes from success, but in the short term I have always believed that the S14 teams should be used primarily as feeder teams and so players should be moved around, if possible, to form combinations – for example the front row players playing together, second rows… and so on. Although the players become commodities I think it is wasteful not to do so as there is no relegation. When that doesn’t happen you see players being moved to secondary positions, as we are currently seeing in Australia.
Peter K said | September 5th 2008 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Benjamin – You are dreaming son.
It is called commercial interests.
The RU has less power than the english clubs, imagine the RU telling them they had to rest all English wc squad players from the comp, it would not happen. It cannot dictate to them because they are in a comp for their own interests.
The S14 is similar in Australia. WA and ACT are franchises. The ARU cannot dictate what players play where to them it is that simple.
McQueen requested Jones to play players in certain positions at the Brumbies and was refused.
Jones tried a similar thing when he was wallaby coach and was refused.
Each S14 coach lives and dies by his teams performances, they will do what is best for themselves and damn what the Wallabies need.
As I have said before Australian rugby lacks depth of elite players. This is true at Wallaby level then doubly so at S14 level. They will much rather play their best players and move them in position rather than get the next best in a position because the gap is so great, the gulf is enormous from amateur club like premiership and S14. That is why the ARC was so needed.
I agree in an ideal world where we have enough good players you play specialists in all positions with utility players on the bench.
We do not have the depth so no matter how much you harp on that players not being specialist is the problem, the real issue is a lack of elite players.
ohtani's jacket said | September 5th 2008 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
It’s also worth noting that New Zealand plays guys out of position both at provincial level and Test level. Not in the forwards, but definitely in the backs.
Benjamin said | September 5th 2008 @ 8:36pm | Report comment
OJ, to an extent, but you’d never see Sivivatu or Rokocoko at full back or centre. Nonu is now firmly a 12, Carter a 10. The only player I can think of is Toieviea (excuse the spellling).
Peter, do you mean the RFUB? If so the RFU have all but formated central contracts now. They have won their battle for player release.
I understand that the provinces will not be dictated to by the ARU but what I was saying was, even if it is pie in the sky, if Australian rugby lacks depth then the S14 competition is the perfect opportunity to produce the perfect foundation for national rugby simply because there is no relegation. For example – what use is TNP sitting on the bench at NSW? Btw who pays the wages of players – the ARU or the provinces?
You cannot tell me that a player like AAC having no single position is good for Australian rugby. If the provinces had given players like him seasons in a position then they might have more elite players to choose from.
ohtani's jacket said | September 6th 2008 @ 12:45am | Report comment
Sivivatu plays at fullback sometimes. It was his original position. Howlett played fullback. Muliaina, MacDonald, McAlister, Evans and Toeava all played various positions under Henry. McDonald has just about played every position in the backline bar halfback. Weepu plays first five for Wellington. Mauger played first five for the Crusaders. Wilson played wing and fullback. Cullen was moved to the centres.
Benjamin said | September 6th 2008 @ 12:57am | Report comment
I accept what you’re saying OJ, but MacDonald was not a utility player at the Crusaders nor did Muliaina play centre for Auckland or Waikato. Howlett, Rokocoko or Sivivatu would never be played at fullback or centre at international level though. McAlister only played 10 and 12, as did Carter, but that is to be expected. 10 and 12 are interchangeable in basically every country. Smith and Nonu (apart from a few wing appearences) have always been 13 and 12 at international level. Mortlock has played 12, 13 and 14. Tuqiri has played 13 and 14. AAC has played literally every position, as he does for ACT, whereas MacDonald and Muliaina have only been shuffled at national level to fill a problem position. That is not the case with the Wallabies. Similarly they are out and out fullbacks whereas AAC or Mitchell are not. Giteau has played 9, 10 and 12, Carter has played 10 and 12. I just don’t think it’s necessarily a valid comparison. At provincial level player shuffling is rife in Australia. Gerrard even played fly half for Australia – can you imagine Sivivatu ever playing fly half? The only real comparisons I can think of in NZ are Atiga and Toieva.
ohtani's jacket said | September 6th 2008 @ 1:59am | Report comment
I realise it’s not quite the same, but taking a guy who’s a specialist at provincial level and shunting him around as a utility back is just as bad. Modern coaches have a thing for utility backs and often they just want to fit a player in somewhere like Kahui. Kahui’s been earmarked as a future All Black for a while, but Henry hasn’t quite figured out where and how to play him. Henry’s plan was to have two players for every position, but it didn’t work and he ended up moving guys around. He played Howlett at fullback, tried McAlister at centre. Nonu was a centre before he became a second five. It may not be as bad as Australia, but it left plenty of punters unhappy.
Benjamin said | September 6th 2008 @ 2:04am | Report comment
To that extent you are right, it is a modern problem, post-professional.
I don’t recall Nonu playing 13, his debut was at 12. In any case Henry has been guilt as well, but I think he had the good sense, bar the WC, to not persist with the options you mention. I think he is playing Kahui because NZ need two outside centres. However unless Smith is injured Kahui won’t get a game and so it is better to get some experience on the wing than none at all. I think the performances of the wingers he selected has precipated that move also. I’m hoping, and I think this is the case, that the majority of international coaches are beginning to cease with such moves. No longer will we see Geordan Murphy or Habana at outside centre. A good coach driver will never be a good rally driver.
ohtani's jacket said | September 6th 2008 @ 8:52am | Report comment
Nonu made his debut at 13 and most of his early All Black caps were in that position. Henry used him as cover for both wings as well as the midfield positions, but he’s always been a centre. He was on wing this season before the Hurricanes switched him to 12.
In Kahui’s case, Henry would love to rotate him with Smith, but he’s on a short leash at the moment. Kahui is basically the next Dan Carter in New Zealand. Tuitavake looks the goods too. So Henry’s basically working with four 13s at the moment and no specialist 12. There probably isn’t a 12 in the country that plays the way Henry likes.
Benjamin said | September 6th 2008 @ 11:19am | Report comment
So Nonu was 13 and Umaga 12? I recall you telling me that Umaga hardly ever played 12!? So has Nonu never been a 12 prior to this season?
Got to disagree with Tuitavake with you there OJ, I think he is no way an internationa player. Too short, no boot… average. Kahui looks good though.. time on the ball.
ohtani's jacket said | September 6th 2008 @ 8:10pm | Report comment
For that Test against England Nonu was 13 and Umaga 12.
Nonu subbed on at second five a few times in his on again, off again All Black career. For Wellington he was continuously moved from centre to wing to second five and back again. Umaga hardly ever played 12 at Test level, but he played more second five than centre for Wellington. Conrad Smith was usually the centre.
Tuitavake looked awesome against Samoa. Granted it was Samoa, but he played infield and showed a fair amount of skill. I love how our midfield problem shifted from 12 to 13.
ohtani's jacket said | September 6th 2008 @ 8:11pm | Report comment
Or should I say from 13 to 12!
Benjamin said | September 6th 2008 @ 9:26pm | Report comment
Tutivake should get a run if Henry considers him a genuine 13 option. He didn’t get any quality ball in his previous games so in hindsight it’s a bit hard to judge him as a winger. I don’t think he has winger gas, but then Kahui is second choice 13 so it’s decision time or Henry is further muddling the issue. What do you mean the midfield problem, OJ?
ohtani's jacket said | September 6th 2008 @ 9:41pm | Report comment
After Umaga retired, we had the option of Mauger or McAlister at second five but no outside centre. Now they’ve left for Europe and we suddenly have four options at centre and no one that fits Henry’s desired No.12 role. I can’t see Henry playing Bateman, Donald or Brett at 12
Tutivake fractured his cheek bone against Samoa so he’s out of the picture for now. It’ll be interesting to see if they take him on tour. I suspect so since they’re planning on taking a huge contingent.
Benjamin said | September 6th 2008 @ 10:42pm | Report comment
Ok, I see. Maybe Brett will get a few games because he has qualities similar to Mauger and McAlister. Incidentally, Mauger is Leicester’s captain today – it will be intersting to see how that goes. McAlister should be back soon. Sale persist in playing him at 13 which I do not see the value in. When he’s back Henry will have Nonu and McAlister, a real horse for courses opportunity. I imagine that Tuitavake will always be in the mix or on the periphery simply for his utility value. Wulf seems to have dropped out of the picture. I thought he looked quite good when he last played.
gavin said | September 6th 2008 @ 11:04pm | Report comment
quote Benjamin ‘ It appears that the problem therefore is mental, and I can’t see what Deans can do if the players themselves do not want to do what is required.”
It is not a mental problem, it is a quality problem. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it till I’m blue in the face, there are too many soft gutted pansy private schoolboys in the front row especially. I understand pride will not allow some to accept this, but they are as useless as a hip pocket on a singlet
The Oz rugby union must give up this old school tie stuff that even the English rely less on.
Why is it the rugby union produces, with some exceptions “softies” while the league produced brawlers and great players all it’s history. Why has rugby not had Beetsons and Sattlers’ and Ryan and Farrells and others like them
We have talent in Australia, a lot of it, but the ARU is not interested. The problem will be compounded with O’Neill and the ARU not caring about juniors and the poker machine tax preventing tradition funding of juniors
The NZ government has legislated against advertising on the AB jersey. It’s called pride. The ABs have not played Australia for years, instead they have played imposters called “the Qantas Wallabies” Disgraceful!
Now they want a S14 “franchise” ( dontvha love that term ) in western Sydney among the working class, especially the pacific islanders, but I bet they will still pick a prop who put on his tutu and ran out for St Ignatius or Joeys!
Criticise me if you will, but, like Cassandra, I tell the truth, and no one can see, or won’t admit
Benjamin said | September 6th 2008 @ 11:24pm | Report comment
To be honest I find this private school nonsense rather offensive and childish, not to mention boring. Grow up Gavin.
ohtani's jacket said | September 7th 2008 @ 1:02am | Report comment
Wulf had a hit out against Samoa. I don’t think he’s brought his ability into the Test area yet, but this has to be the worst year to play on the wing for the All Blacks.
gavin said | September 7th 2008 @ 1:11am | Report comment
Benjamin,
you may find it offensive, that doesn’t mean it’s untrue.
The PC brigade often claim to be “offended” to stifle debate.
Hell, it isn’t even your squad so I don’t think you have a right to be offended.
It’s true as I see it, and i say it without fear or favour, malice or ill will
Benjamin said | September 7th 2008 @ 1:21am | Report comment
It is a national squad Gavin, not yours. It is offensive because it implies there is something intrinsically weaker in the character of public schoolboys than state schoolboys. I have no intention of stifling debate because there is no debate, your claim is patently nonsensical. You come out with these silly, generic cliches like props are fat, league players can have a fight grr.. and there is a public schoolboy conspiracy. It is worth noting that the pack that smashed Australia in the WC QF contained Sheridan, Shaw, Kay, Easter, Chuter and Stevens. I wonder what they have in common… oh, they’re all public schoolboys.
OJ, I forget who against, but I thought Wulf looked good in his 3N game. He looked intelligent and willing to work. You’re right, it is unfortunate that this year hasn’t been vintage in terms of running rugby, but I suppose that initial conservatism is a natural adjunct of change.
gavin said | September 7th 2008 @ 1:41am | Report comment
Benny
rugby i it’s early years was used as a character builder by schools as those that became young officers were spread out to the Empire.
I understand the public schoolboys of the England front row were better than our public schoolboys
The fact is, when you are yp against the Boks and the ABs, you must stand up for youself as both teams have a less than savoury histry with violent play. Stomping on a bloke’s head in Oz is known as “the Maori sidestep”
David Campese always moaned about the intimidatory tactics of the ABs. His last complaint was only a few weeks ago
Fact is Ben, the State schoolboys are a harder, tougher lot than the public school boys, again allowing for exceptions. League front rowers have a no nonsense attitude to the opposing side, “thump” cop that! That’s what the Wallabies require
I still maintain rugby forwards are fat, so fitness and toughness needs to be increased.
Remember too, my main complaint is the ARU is not looking for front row talent for the Wallabies in the general population. Dunning is the only one who is not a public school boy and he is more likely to use his fists
Ben rugby is about intimidation and handling the intimidation. There was an Aussie rules coach on TV the other night who told his players if they are intimidated, to flatten the other bloke and he stated he doesn’t care about penalties.
One great league coach said, “if you get marched off the field, that’s fine, so long as the other bloke is carried off”!
THAT! is the attitude required by our coach and forwards
Benjamin said | September 7th 2008 @ 1:48am | Report comment
*speechless*
gavin said | September 7th 2008 @ 1:57am | Report comment
Ask Campese. He’ll tell you as he told the rest of the country.
Your reply infers we are not allowed to defend ourselves against thugs
gavin said | September 7th 2008 @ 2:14am | Report comment
Ben, see the link below. I suggest you read it for no other reason than to qualify that my opinion is not isolated
There is a large school of though that says “bring back the biff” as the game is getting soft
You will see I am not alone here Hear it from the greats themselves
http://www.eraofthebiff.com/p06-you.html
Benjamin said | September 7th 2008 @ 2:20am | Report comment
Thugs? What thugs?
Good link, how completely irrelevant to the modern game. I suppose it’s a coincidence that you ignore Henderson and Ryan, two league forward converts, two useless sacks of sh*t. Bring back the biff indeed, why don’t you submit an article about how soft private schoolboys are and that there should be more violence in the game and see what response you get.
gavin said | September 7th 2008 @ 2:32am | Report comment
I am not promoting violence. I am promoting the right to defend oneself against known thugs. Our lads are not of the type to do that. Their background is soft
The boks have at least two players every test that have cauliflower ears. They get this in the Currie Cup, their domestic comp. They play it hard and often not fair
The link I sent you explains how to handle this. You must fight fire with fire
As for Henderson and Ryan well, i suspect they are not the only ones, but their are others who are, some ex rugby props with years of experience at school and club level
Spare us all the drivel about the “modern game” HAHA! What the hell does that mean ?
So there you have it Ben. You see, I am not a lone looney, but the holder of a common opinion
I will however, draw the line at Bumper farrell the NSW police officer who, while playing for Newtown. bit an opposing player’s clean off, read about it there. I am civiilsed and wouldn’t expect that!
Benjamin said | September 7th 2008 @ 2:40am | Report comment
1. What thugs?
2. No 3N South African forwards have cauliflower ears. I don’t see what relevance that has. Fitpatrick doesn’t have cauliflower ears, neither does Kearns, neither does Julian White, neither does Du Randt, neither does Mark Regan and so on. I know scrum halfs who have cauliflower ears, and I know a man with a cauliflower ear from when he got bashed up on the street. What has that to do with anything?
3. I think you’ll find that modern rugby is far more complicated than it was ten, twenty and thirty years ago. The term modern is employed to denote that I am referring to the contemporary game.
4. If you’re not alone Gavin then go for it, submit an article espousing all your views about public schools and biffo etc. Go for it.
gavin said | September 7th 2008 @ 3:06am | Report comment
Are you thick ?
The cauliflower ears is a leftover from when they played the game hard, as they still do in SA. What has this to do with the players you mention ? We know not all players have cauliflower ears. I was trying to show you the hard and often dirty play that leads to these things
Modern rugby more complicated is it . Why ? I understand what you mean the contemporary game, but what is the contemporary game. How is it different and why ?
I tell you what son, the galah in the local pet shop would fully understnad what I said and the context in which I said it. You apparently do not
gavin said | September 7th 2008 @ 3:08am | Report comment
PS
Eveyone knows my opinion here and I’ve posted the link before. I sugest you read it
Benjamin said | September 7th 2008 @ 3:16am | Report comment
Gavin, I would have asked you if you were thick but I think we all know the answer, and I have better manners than that.
“The boks have at least two players every test that have cauliflower ears.”
No they don’t. That is a factually incorrect statement. No member of the SA pack has a single cauliflower ear. As I have quite clearly illustrated cauliflower ears have no bearing whatsoever on a players hardiness, which you incorrectly asserted. Hard and often dirty play does not lead to having a cauliflower ear.
“Modern rugby more complicated is it . Why ?”
Because the game is faster, harder and more physically demanding than ever before. Defences are monumentally hard to breadk down and thus rugby is now a game of chess, hence Eddie Jone’s 30 page play book. I would love to see you try and run an international lineout. I would imagine that you would struggle to run a bath.
You have twice mentioned thugs and then declined to actually elaborate upon that point. You have also said that all props are fat, the Heineken cup should be ditched, there is a public school conspiracy in Australia, all Irish fly halfs have been boring and all NH refs have been rubbish. Congratulations to you sir.
gavin said | September 7th 2008 @ 3:29am | Report comment
my mentioning of the cauliflower ears was not a measure of player toughness, but how they play the game. Again. you misunderstand and bring in total irrelevencies
Search around that Bok pack and you’ll find a cauliflower ear of two
Eddie Jone’s 30 page play book is a standing joke here. What nonsense. I though better of Jones. His still a man I respect, but that 30 page book is unnecessary bollocks. An over complication of a simple game where all you have to do is get the basics right and consistently so, as the ABs have demonstrated throughout their history
I certainly could not run the line out. Although you must admit, it’s hardly an intellectual pursuit
How do you mean I should elaborate on the word “thug” It’s obvious what I’m talking about
Props are fat, there is indeed a public school conspiracy and practice in Australia and NH refs are rubbish. They don’t understand allowing the advantage. They are whistle happy and the Irish are worst of the lot. Many SH people will tell you that. Irish fly halves aren’t worth a crumpet traditionally compared to SH runners and passers
The worst in the SH is Kaplan. Total goose he is.
So you see, i Don’t hide from what I said. I stand by it
Benjamin said | September 7th 2008 @ 3:34am | Report comment
Just to prove a point tell me one member of the SA pack who has a cauliflower ear. Other than that every other sentence you typed is literally the silliest bunch of nonsense I have ever had the misfortune of reading.
gavin said | September 7th 2008 @ 3:46am | Report comment
All I can say is look at them closely, I must be honest and say I don’t remember which players, but they are there. :Look closely. Have a good look at them in close up
As for the nonsense you believe in re Jones’s 30 page drill. It’s a simple game. Keep it that way. For some strange reason, you seem to think it’s a technical pursuit. It isn’t!
Benjamin said | September 7th 2008 @ 3:50am | Report comment
How ironic that in a squad of about 16 forwards there is not one cauliflower ear. Not one. They must be really soft those Springboks.
Rugby is a simple game, but only the best players in the world make it look simple. For the rest of the international field it is a vastly complicated and pressured sphere. That is why Guinness Premiership coaches have 18 hour days, 6 days a week.
gavin said | September 7th 2008 @ 3:52am | Report comment
The cupboard has just barer
We won’t even be using Overseas based players in the Wallaby squad
http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/09/05/Wallabies_to_maintain_ban_on_overseasbased_players
gavin said | September 7th 2008 @ 4:01am | Report comment
well we must look for a photo of the team. I’m certain there’s more than one caulifl
Benjamin said | September 7th 2008 @ 9:05am | Report comment
No, there isn’t actually. Not one. Similarly in the England squad only Sheridan, Vickery and Moody have cauliflower ears. Only John Hayes does in the Ireland team and I don’t believe that any Welsh, French or Scottish forwards posses swollen ears either. Mmm… there goes that point.
ohtani's jacket said | September 7th 2008 @ 10:21am | Report comment
This is beginning to sound like those people back home who think the All Blacks can’t win the World Cup because there’s too many Islanders in the team.
Benjamin said | September 7th 2008 @ 10:26am | Report comment
Do you not agree with that sentiment OJ? Damn those ethnics to hell! There’s far too many of them for my liking.
gavin said | September 7th 2008 @ 10:43am | Report comment
I would have thought a couple of those Islanders a blessing actually, not all, but some have proved handy and capable.
Ben Regardless of the amount of cauliflower ears on tour, the Currie Cup has a few which leaves me to believe they have a tough competitionI still reckon there’s a couple round somewhere
Benjamin said | September 7th 2008 @ 11:07am | Report comment
There are cauliflower ears at my local club but they’re an awful team in an awful league. The Currie Cup is full of mismatches and is tough if you’re an amateur. I doubt it even compares to National League One.