The Wallaby tour from a Southern perspective
Roar Guru By Monty String, 8 Oct 2008 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- America, American Football, Melbourne, Rugby Union, Storm, Thunder, wallabies
Related coverage
No, not Melbourne. A little further north than that: Chattanooga, Tennessee, where I was born. If the folks up there paid close attention to rugby instead of the NFL, and if they knew something about the game of rugby, they’d surely opine that the Wallabies were in for a whuppin’ on the coming tour.
They’d sit back in their rockers on the porch, let go a wad of Red Dog, sip on their sour mash, and say, “Taint no two ways ’bout it. Them Wallabies are gonna get their be-hinds waxed real good.”
And you know what? They’d be right.
Now you’re wondering what a Johnny Reb would know about the game they play in heaven. Well, I know the difference between a hawk and a handsaw, and I also know the difference between a well-paid, under-performing winger and a fine inside-centre who’s playing out of position.
No prize for filling in the names.
But let’s get back to the NFL – American football.
The players are all pros who make astonishing catches and thundering runs, rarely spilling the ball. The running backs also catch numerous passes and hand-offs from the Quarter-Bac, usually without fumbling.
On defense, the linebackers hit hard and don’t often miss.
Why do they do all these things so well?
Because they’ve been taught the skills, they’ve learned them, and they know that if they screw up, they’ll be benched.
So why do Aussie rugby pros perpetually disappoint in their basics?
It’s not because they’re two entirely different games – a football is a football, big or small.
I don’t know the reason, and neither do the folks in Tennessee. Maybe some of the people on this forum have an idea.
Another question: how come the Aussie backs don’t gell for 80 minutes? Sometimes not even for 15 minutes.
It could be because Cordingley gets a fast pass away – that’s why he’s in the squad – and then it starts to break down because the rugby union powers insist that Gits is a five-eight when he’s not.
It could be that Barnes is the best option at that position.
Is it possible that, with Wallaby fans hoping for another Horan, they’ve got one in Gits if he played in Horan’s old position?
Could it be that, if the selectors insist on Gits at five-eight, then the best option would be to move Mortlock outside him and let Tahu, Cross and Tuqiri fight it out for outside-centre (they point to Tuqiri’s record as a finisher, so they have to play him. But they’re kind of uncomfortable with him on the wing).
As for the forwards, out of eight players who’ll scrum down in the first test, only one of them, Smith, is a standout.
This does not bode well for a good result against the All Blacks in Hong Kong, let alone when they get to Britain where the big packs live.
If you watch the British games, as I do, you’ll see that not only are the forwards big, fierce and relentless scrummages, but the backs are now a lot better than we’re used to seeing.
Plus, all the oppositions have an A-list kicker, and in Gits the Wallabies are forced to use a backup kicker.
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
Passionate about your union? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily union email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
- Explore:
- America, American Football, Melbourne, Rugby Union, Storm, Thunder, wallabies
October 8th 2008 @ 2:41am
ThelmaWrites said | October 8th 2008 @ 2:41am | Report comment
In all the years that I’ve listened to John Madden, I still can’t work out the nickel-and-dime defence!
Precisely, with the Wallabies, there have been so much changes in player deployment that continuity in a position and as a unit has suffered. You’re constantly drilling in a different position. Also, the ELVs have profoundly changed the game, both in attack and defense, that the thinking has not caught up yet. And then there’s all that discussion as to which ELVs apply, to compound the problem.
October 8th 2008 @ 4:16am
Benjamin said | October 8th 2008 @ 4:16am | Report comment
Or perhaps they don’t make mistakes because they only play for very brief, intermittent periods? Running backs rarely drop the ball because they literally stick it up their jumper and they don’t have to worry about ball retention because once they hit the floor their part in the game is over for the time being. It simply isn’t an apt comparison and whilst I agree with your sentiment about player positions you forget that John Mitchell also insists on Giteau playing 10, thus it isn’t as if Deans threw him in at the deep end.
October 8th 2008 @ 6:45am
Monty String said | October 8th 2008 @ 6:45am | Report comment
THELMAWRITES – Nice to have a female voice on this testosterone-fuelled forum. A nickel defense is used when a passing play is inevitable, usually third and long in the NFL. A linebacker is pulled in favor of a speedier defensive back. A dime defense replaces two linebackers with two defensive backs. John Maddon always sounds to me like he’s shouting down a windtunnel. But I wish we had some rugby commentators calling the games with his kind of expertise. You seldom learn much listening to Phil Kearns et al.
BENJAMIN – the meat and potato halfbacks and fullbacks in the NFL, and the defensive linebackers (excepting those third and long situation mentioned above) and the pass-catching stars play the four quarters with a sub now and then. That’s why top runners in the
NFL turn in 100-yard plus gains in game after game. And they do indeed have to worry about ball retention because, unless they go all the way, they’re hit a lot harder than they would be in rugby. And while it’s illegal to tackle a man in the air in rugby, it’s perfectly legal to slam a player in American football while he’s off the ground. And still they hold onto it. I prefer a good game of rugby (if there is such a thing anymore) to a good game of American football, but you’ll never convince me that rugby pros are more talented than the pros of the NFL or the CFL.
Re. Mitchell and Giteau: one of the reasons why Gits doesn’t get on with Mitchell is because Mitch plays him at 5/8. Gits knows he’s a center, and wants to play there where he can have that much more room to move. Playing at 5/8, so close to today’s speedy international breakaways, greatly reduces his options. Also, he doesn’t have an eye for the gap as Bernie did. Plus his offensive kicking can go from great to awful in a game. It’s hard to adjust the Wallaby pack these days, but let’s hear your choice for the backs against the ABs in HK.
October 8th 2008 @ 7:22am
Benjamin said | October 8th 2008 @ 7:22am | Report comment
Monty, yes but if you so choose, as a running back, you can literally double grip the ball, clenched under your forearms, head down ann just rush with no consequence. That is not possible in a game of union, furthermore the yards you refer to are produced over intermittent short periods, as I mentioned. It is not accurate to compare a sport in which you have one role – catching the ball, or making yardage, with positions that require more.
Regarding Giteau, you still have to kick lots at 12. I personally see him as a 12 but that produces a problem at 10. Barnes is not really a proper 10 either. He still plays 10 the way a league fly half does. I’m not sure about HK simply because I’m not entirely convinced about Deans’s selections. I think that Mortlock is a nescessity at 13, and his parternship with Giteau at 12 was very fruitful. However in an ideal world I’d like to see Staniforth on the bench as both a wing option and an alternate number 12. He’s inventive and physical, thus providing variety to that which Giteau offers. Hynes has pretty much cemented one wing position and as much as I would begrudge it to him I simply don’t think there are any viable alternatives to Tuqiri. He provides a physical balance and a useful cross-field kick option. Drew Mitchell is still too headless and Turner is too small to play alongside Hynes. In the absence of Sheperd I would have to go with AAC at 15 even though I think his best position will ultimately be at 13. I would always prefer to see Barnes and Giteau at 10-12, but I imagine that Deans will persevere with his 3N selections. Burgess is guaranteed a start at 9 simply because Cordingley is too pedestrian and Sheehan is mediocre at best. I’m confident that Burgess will grow into a fine player but he is too adventurous behind a weak pack. Therefore the 3N team Burgess – Barnes (at 10) – Hynes – Giteau – Mortlock – Tuqiri – AAC.
You?
October 8th 2008 @ 1:52pm
old goalie said | October 8th 2008 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
yup
(spit)
uh- huh
October 8th 2008 @ 2:08pm
True Tah said | October 8th 2008 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
Monty,
I have to agree with Benjamin, I am an NFL fan and can appreciate that physically, these guys are the pinnacle of the football codes, and generally you will find that these guys were not only excelling at football in high school and college, they excelled at all sports.
However in rugby, you need to be able to do a variety of tasks, a wide receiver does not need to make tackles, neither does a quarterback.
These guys need to do one thing well and bloody well – it is specialisation to the nth degree, if a wide receiver can’t catch the ball and run real fast, then he’s cut, whereas rugby players need to be able to do multiple tasks.
October 8th 2008 @ 2:55pm
El Capitan said | October 8th 2008 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
I believe that the only time an NFL player is multi skilled is in pee-wee football, where some kids play on the defence and offence. Once they have chosen their pefered position they excel in it. Same could be said for a batter in cricket that comes in at 5 or 6. If the top order drops quickly and the ball is still new, there is a higher chance that the batter in 5 or 6 will get dismissed, compared if they came in around the 30th over mark and the ball has lost its shine.
Rugby players have to be multi skilled. I mean look at the forwards! In the days I played, a forwards job was to win the ball from the attacking team. Nowadays players are expected to make breaks, win ball, pass like a slick back and have the chase game of an outside centre. that includes the props!
October 8th 2008 @ 3:40pm
Harry said | October 8th 2008 @ 3:40pm | Report comment
Hell yeah, we are gonna git our asses wupped real good on this tour. We will be beaten up front and the backs will be on the back foot throughout. I predict we will win 2 out of the 5 tests only.
We will improve from there though.
October 8th 2008 @ 8:24pm
Mark H said | October 8th 2008 @ 8:24pm | Report comment
Comon Monty, thats crap mate. You up start. Euro Rugby….its a travesty to remain in the past. I guess its like Apple backing up Microsoft. Makes no sense, it’s a waste of time and nobody wins.
What I dont get after living in the US is why yanks are so damn scared of Rugby, as for NFL…..I just went to watch a game and found the best spectacle was the cheer leaders. The game between the Patriots and Dallas, dragged out like an episode of ‘The Bold and The Beautiful’. All the hot and steamy but no sex. Breaks your heart.
Now yes they can run and catch in the NFL like anyone else but, the ball isnt in contest for 100% of the game. Rugby dosnt have 60 players in a roster so, Rugby players actually get to touch the ball and the entire game dosnt revolve around some yokle who, can forward pass real good like n such.
Sure we got some boys who should be playing up to the mark, but that the beauty of the game. Honk Kong will be a cracker cause Im going, The UK…well. They just wont be fit enough. The games evolving but the Brits arnt. I too have been watching the games and the 6 nations was a poor cousin to the 3 nations which is why the UK hates the ELVs. In the months ahead, new Australian Champions will emerg and some fade away but, if there is any waxing going on, itll be the back hair thanks.
October 8th 2008 @ 9:01pm
Benjamin said | October 8th 2008 @ 9:01pm | Report comment
its a travesty to remain in the past.
Honk Kong will be a cracker cause Im going, The UK…well. They just wont be fit enough. The games evolving but the Brits arnt. I too have been watching the games and the 6 nations was a poor cousin to the 3 nations which is why the UK hates the ELVs.
—
That’s ironic.