By Spiro Zavos
November 3rd 2008 @ 5:37am
Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates..
---------------
Wallabies need to learn that rugby is an 80 minute game
Memo to the Wallabies after their gut-wrenching defeat at Hong Kong against the All Blacks 19 - 14: remember that rugby is an 80 minute game. As Sean Fitzpatrick might have said, the historic Hong Kong Bledisloe Cup Test was a game of two halves, with the Wallabies on top and in front in the first half, and the All Blacks on top and in front at full-time, 19 -14.
After being so dominant in the first half, when they should have scored more points than they did, the Wallabies virtually collapsed as soon as they ran on to the slippery field in the second half and were outscored 10 - 0, with the All Blacks bombing several other scoring chances.
At the end of the Test, which was an enthralling encounter, with the ball like a slippery piece of soap and a greasy field making purposeful running difficult, I wrote in my notebook that three factors had undone the Wallabies.
1. A falling of the fitness levels, both physical and mental, the longer the Test went on.
Matt Giteau should never have missed that penalty about 35m out and almost in line with less than 20 minutes to go to bring the score line back to 19 - 17. At the end of the Test, too, the Wallabies were inside the All Blacks 22 several times, and stupid decisions were made, passes were fumbled, and so on.
2. Gamesmanship with the scrums and rucks and mauls was continued for too long.
It was clear from the beginning of the Test that referee Alan Lewis didn’t want much of a contest at the rucks. He penalised Richie McCaw at the first breakdown. From then on, he penalised the Wallabies, and rightly so. They continued to dive in, even when Lewis made it clear that he wasn’t going to allow this. The three penalties Dan Carter kicked for the All Blacks in the first half kept them in a game they were being shut out of.
The same comment applies to the scrums.
It was clear that the Wallabies were touching when asked to ‘touch’, but were engaging before the call. Then Luke Burgess was feeding quickly before the referee had worked out the con. When the referee did work it out, the Wallabies continued to offend, and were penalised. And when the scrums were set properly, the All Blacks, on the Wallaby feed, were able to monster the Wallaby pack. Were the second-rowers pushing properly? Have Al Baxter and Matt Dunning finally reached their used-by date?
As an aside, except in the scrums and rucks, the Wallabies showed a lot of enterprise on attack and defence. Although, as Rod Kafer pointed out, they should have run back more kicks and spread the ball more from turnovers. But they are going to struggle even against teams like Italy if they get bogged down in a forward-attrition match. If they can clear the ball, there is an enterprise and skill level, as they showed with their two tries in the first half, that any team in the world, and particularly Northern Hemisphere teams, are going to find difficult to contain.
One further aside.
I watched the Foxtel commentary. Channel 7 has been a poor sponsor of rugby and I’m not going to support them in any way. This means, however, that I have to listen to the rantings of Greg Martin and Phil Kearns, both Wallabies, with Kearns being one of the all-time greats.
But not all-time greats, or remotely near it, as analysts. Time and time again, they would berate the referee for a poor decision and when the replay showed that he was right (and I am no fan of Alan Lewis, either), there was silence on their part.
I’ve had this out with Martin, an amiable fellow.
He says that everyone knows he’s biased towards Queensland and the Wallabies. But my response is that he (and Kearns) let their bias get in the way of a proper reading of what is happening in the match. Wallaby supporters listening to the Martin-Kearns show find it difficult to work out how the Wallabies lose any Tests.
And a final aside, Robbie Deans made the valid point that the plethora of scrum penalties, particularly, were a good advertisement for the full ELVs in that the referee should not be deciding the outcome of Tests.
3. Graham Henry used his bench well by bringing on Piri Weepu, who had played a lot of rugby in the last couple of months, to replace Jimmy Cowan, who was match-rusty very early in the second half.
Ma Nonu, also a player who has played some rugby recently, was brought on at the same time. These two players, Nonu particularly, provided a lot of energy to the All Blacks, which lifted the play of the rest of the side.
The team also benefited from Carter running things at first five-eighths.
Can anyone explain why Henry seems to be determined never to play his best starting 15?
The statistics of the Test told the tale: possession New Zealand 55 - Australia 45. Time in opposition 22 New Zealand 5.46 minutes - Australia 3.26. Missed tackles New Zealand 12 - Australia 26.
Good points for the Wallabies were the first 40 minutes, when they looked like a champion side, a side capable of defeating any side in the world; the energy Luke Burgess brought to the halfback position; the attacking defence, especially in the first half; the outstanding ensemble play that led to the first try; a couple of strong scrums; some good lineout work; and the sharp play of Matt Giteau.
What supporters want now is for all this good work to be played out for the entire game.
Rugby, after all, is an 80 minute game, and being ahead at half-time as the Wallabies have been in the last two Tests against the All Blacks, does not secure a victory.
So now on to Europe.
Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(74)
sheek said | November 3rd 2008 @ 6:54am | Report comment
Spiro,
I think the Wallabies gave all they had, but were simply not good enough. For that I am proud of them (it’s a sign of the times, we’re happy if the Wallabies are competitive). I agree fitness is a problem (compared to ABs) but the Wallabies aren’t at the same playing level.
Just like the Kangaroos in rugby league. Towards the end of the Australia-England match, as the Roos posted their half-century, commentator Peter Sterling quipped these guys should go over to India, where the cricket team is looking for some fifties.
I would much rather Lockyer, Inglis & Slater in a Wallaby backline, with Price & Civinaciva in the front-row. Yes, there’s always someone who will say they’re different games, different skill levels.
My point is Australian rugby league has the lion’s share of better athletes, just as NZ & SA rugby union. Until the ARU makes a far more determined effort to increase the attraction of union among our youth, rather than keep it a marginalised sport, then nothing much will change. The Wallabies will continue to chug along, some good days amongst mostly disappointing days.
The media raves over Giteau, who is not a patch on the 3 afore-mentioned league players, or Larkham, Lynagh or Ella. But he’s the best we have at the moment. There’s some good talent coming through, & Australia can hope for better days. However, historically, when we hit a low, unlike the ABs, we remain in a low for some years.
It gets back to the ARU getting out into the marketplace & securing more of the talented youngsters for union, & not have them playing league, soccer or AFL. Deans is doing the best he can with the cattle he’s got. It’s a tough gig.
This political announcement was not paid for by anyone!!!!!
Mart said | November 3rd 2008 @ 7:52am | Report comment
Spiro - I 100% agree with you on the commentary (can’t call it insight) by Kearns / Martin. They actually spolied what was adecent test for me, a first. I’m struggling to remember when I’ve heard a worse sports commentary (in any sport) - one eyed and jingoistic, often plain wrong, heaps of blokey jokey stuff that was utterly lame, and zero insight. Well done all round ! Surely if Fox want blokey jokey there are much better options who give both humour and insight (Eric Rush, Buddha Handy for example). The peach for me was Martin’s “why do we let NH refs take charge of our (yep our !) SH game” comment ! Martin may well be an amiable fellow - then again so are most of the contributors to the Roar - but he adds nothing as a commentator / pundit (as previous posts on the Roar have pointed out) either in games or on shows like the Back Page. Kafer is hugely insightful and should get the gig with Martin and Kearns being pensioned off to the pub comedy circuit in Far North Queensland. Unfortunately lame commentating seems to be creeping into all the pay TV rugby presentations - anyone who had Fox’s European feeds for RWC2007 or Sentanta’s recent England tests will have had to endure the likes of Brian Moore (hey, maybe the issue is with boofy ex hookers ?), Eddie Butler, Jerry Guscott and co doing their NH-slanted version of Kearns and Martin. However when NH folk like Gareth Chilcott get the gig they manage to show that the cheeky chappy style can somtimes go with someone who understands the game and enhances the viewer’s understanding of it. And an honourable exception is the excellent reads and insight provided by Nigel Starmer Smith, and Kafer-like assist of Jonathan Davies. Like Kafer, they prove it is possible for ex players to be good presenters. Wake up Fox ! And Spiro - apply for the position NOW before it’s too late !
Nick (KIA) said | November 3rd 2008 @ 7:58am | Report comment
Spiro,
I agree with your comments about Kearns and Martin.
There was a particularly grating episode when McCaw was tackled by Mumm near ABs line, there were no other Wallabies in sight and a heap of ABs fell over the ball.
Ref ordered a penalty to Wallabies, which was probably technically correct (although always seems a bit crazy to me when there is no opposition to compete and hold up the team that falls over and seals off).
Kearns ranted that “McCaw had at last been penalised” after “cheating”. From my reading of the situation McCaw was not at fault, and as you correctly pointed out he had already been penalised at least once.
At this point, Wallabies had also conceded about 9 penalties for R&M and scrum infringments. While I think the ref had got twitched with the Wallabies and some of the calls were going against them, making sure you don’t annoy the ref by not pulling your head in when he asks you to is asking for this treatment.
Despite this, the commentary was always about how the ABs were infringing and not being caught.
Dopey.
Disclaimer: I’m an ardent ABs supporter, living in Sydney…
LeftArmSpinner said | November 3rd 2008 @ 7:59am | Report comment
I think we underestimate the damage done to the individuals and the team psyche over the past 4-5 years. It will take more than just new players. We are seeing it happen.
It is also often a characteristic of young teams to fall short initially but the good ones come back stronger.
Having said that, just look at the Netballers. They have several senior and critical players out but the young, inexperienced replacements step up and beat the NZ’ers. Also, the Kangaroos, they also have many young inexperienced players but have put big scores on both of their closest rivals.
Youth and inexperience is not necessarily a problem. just look at the impact of Burgess, Brown and Horwill!!!! They look like they were born to it!!
sheek said | November 3rd 2008 @ 8:20am | Report comment
BTW, I watched the game via the channel 7 feed in the bedroom, because the females in my family wanted foxtel to watch in the lounge room.
Anyway, I was fascinated by Gordon Bray’s remarkable prescience in reading the play, courtesy of the sound feed being about 1-2 seconds before the visual feed. I actually found this enormously amusing. I wonder if anyone else noticed this?
OldManEmu said | November 3rd 2008 @ 9:14am | Report comment
Spiro I am sorry but I respectfully disagree absolutely with your assessment of the Wallabies scrum. This is my post on another thread:
“I am particularly heartened to see that there are people who are finally recognising that our scrum is not that bad.
This may not be something that can seriously happen at the level but I think we need to sit down with the referees boss and have this scrum issue out. Jim Williams and maybe a scrum doctor like Andrew Blades or maybe even an overseas ex player, perhaps the great Scot David Sole or Trevor Woodman who now helps out at Sydney Uni, armed with a video of the last three years, demonstrating how our scrum has improved out of sight and providing examples of how opposition scrums are conning the referee.
I dont think it is a matter of nous Jerry. Using Al Baxter as an example, he was thrown in to International Rugby before he was ready and got carved up plenty of times. But he is there now, he is up there with the best. So now he is trying to establish credibility. He wants his opposition to know he can scrum. Naturally he is going to try to monster his opponent, that is plan A,B & C. But then if he does try to get sneaky and not scrummage and pulls a trick - he gets pinged, if the opposition pull a trick Baxter gets pinged, if the scrum simply collapses as they tend to do every now and then, Baxter gets pinged. At present he cant win.
It was there to see on Saturday, the referee lecturing Moore about the early engagement when Mealamu was doing exactly the same thing. It was absolute crapola. I thought it showed supreme control on the part of Moore to keep it together.”
I have re-watched the game, and replayed a number of scrums and I stand by my comments above.
I think Sharpe had a very good game and as best one is able to judge these things from the comfort of the lounge room, it looked to me he was giving maximum effort at scrum time. Richie McCaw slipped up a number of times to help his prop, i.e he packed onto Baxter and Robinson so they were scrumamging against three instead of two. The breakaway does not do this unless they see the need to do it, or their prop asks them and it is usually a sign of a dominant scrummaging effort, here from Baxter and Robinson.
I saw two scrums in the second half where the ABS “monstered” our scrum and four where we “monstered” the ABS scrum. I assume by monstered you mean, disrupt and get it going backwards.
Your comment that maybe Dunning and Baxter have reached their use by date - see above for what I think about Baxter. Have a look at the tape and see how much game time Dunning got and how many scrums he packed Spiro! Fair go.
You say that Mat Giteau should not have missed a penalty goal and in some way this reflects a failing of physical and mental fitness. Dan Carter missed an absolute sitter in the second half. What does this say about him?
To address your point (finally) I would argue that the Wallabies did play for 80 minutes, as hard as they could - the ABs just played for 80 minutes a bit better. And this is rub presently, the ABs are ever so slightly better and by definition this must mean they play the full 80 minutes better.
On the Kearns and Martin issue, as you allude to, both Bonza blokes. My take on their jingoistic commentary is that (a) it is tongue in cheek and that most sensible people who know the game understand this, and (b) it is an effort to redress the huge imbalance created by some of your colleagues in the print media who are hyper critical of the Wallabies. They are no more biased than the South African commentators of the New Zea;and commentators - it is part of the fun.
Why does Henry not play his best starting fifteen - becasue he can.
Mart said | November 3rd 2008 @ 9:25am | Report comment
OME - on the commentary point…don’t disagree but why sink to this level ? I grew up listening to Bill McLaren who was a passionate Scots rugby fan but that never came out in his excellent commentating. Everyone accepts Martin / Kearns are obviously passionate Aussies but why should that mean dumb, poor commentating. Kafer, Eales etc don’t do that…..
sheek said | November 3rd 2008 @ 9:26am | Report comment
OME,
A very good alternative viewpoint presented. I especially agree about the scrum & particularly Baxter, he has improved immensely. With referees, it’s a case of “round up the usual suspects”.
The Wallaby scrum is paying the price of the actual & perceived weaknesses of its predecessors from 2001-2007. Referees are caught in a time warp. All that said, I still wouldn’t mind some of the wonderful naturally gifted, fast & strong athletes running around in rugby league.
They are wasted in the backwater sport of rugby league. And God knows, we could use them in our game of rugby union, which is only marginally more advanced as an international sport anyway!!!
stuff happens said | November 3rd 2008 @ 9:32am | Report comment
Thanks Spiro I agree with most of your article.Yet again the Wallabies fail to score a single point in the 2nd half. How many times has this occurred since we all bemoaned the same thing in the defeat by Eng in RWC ‘07.
So disappointing after their terrific effort in the first half.As you rightly say we ran out of gas again .Why ,what’s the excuse? They don’t do anything else.
Bring Back Melon said | November 3rd 2008 @ 9:39am | Report comment
First of all: Credit to the Wallabies for playing well, getting the lead and staying competitive right to the end.
I agree with LAS. I think the lack of a “winning habit” is another BIG factor in the loss.
I wonder how much thought has been given to changing the captaincy BEFORE Mortlock retires. I though both Mortlock and Cross had good games. Barnes also looked very good when he came on. Maybe swich captaincy to Horwill, keep Mortlock around (so long as he is playing well of course) and/or use him as a bench player, interchanging with Cross?
Brett McKay said | November 3rd 2008 @ 9:42am | Report comment
Sheek, re Gordon Bray’s “insight” on Ch7’s commentary, yes, I noticed this too, but not until after the Wallabies scored the first try. But then all of a sudden I noticed kicks were being praised for their distance as the ball left the boot, and players were hitting gaps before the ball was passed.
The clincher was Mitchell’s second try, Gordon correctly “predicted” the try before Mitchell was even in the frame!!
I thought it might have been a local problem with Prime’s feed, but evidently it was a wider problem…
Bailey said | November 3rd 2008 @ 10:03am | Report comment
Its funny how most Australian’s can’t stand the commentary of Kearns but I know A LOT of Kiwis who LOVE their commentary and would prefer to have them over the boring coronation street commentary of Drakey and that other dude!
Anywho being a All Blacks fan, i gotta say Wallabies are looking mighty good lately! Read an article on a NZ website that the British media are already licking there lips on how easy it will be to beat the All Blacks and Wallabies after the HK test, with Spiros best friend Stephen Jones being the leader of the pack of course!! It’ll be nice to see him eat his words
Go SH rugby!!!!
number3 said | November 3rd 2008 @ 10:14am | Report comment
Sorry to take a bash ref line but Spiro the guy was just incompetent. It was clear to me he refereed with an agenda and that agenda had only one team as it’s heading.
The example I use was when he penalised the Wallabies for packing to early he then lectured Moore about it being OK to manage the engage timing on his ball. IT WAS HIS FEED !!!!!!
This bloke is not up to a test of this level.
stillmissit said | November 3rd 2008 @ 10:32am | Report comment
Spiro usually love your stuff but this one leaves me less than enthused. Put aside Kearns and Martin they are never going to be the RIchie’s of rugby.
The scrum stood up OK one penalty against Baxter that was reshown, showed him bent down but still on his feet whilst the AB was on his knees and the ref did him for collapsing. A brave nay stupid call from the touchline. The McCaw try looked about a metre forward on a slow motion replay with a straight edge across the screen but those things happen.
The officiating was appauling but its not for Kearns and Martin to rant about it all night, there are others watching the broadcast. I agree bring in Kafer and also Buddha, this would do it for me, a bit of a laugh and a bit of insight would be fine.
I thought the Wallaby fitness level was fine it was just that after the half time rev up we couldn’t stay with the AB’s. I agree, dont think Deans used his bench all that well either.
Psycho said | November 3rd 2008 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Spiro
Many of the ABs have just come out of the NPC a week ago. The Wallabies have been on the training paddock for two months. Most players would agree that any amount of training doesnt stack up for match fitness and decision making especially in the back end of the game. I’d suggest that’s part of the reason along with the lack of winning habit which would explain the game of two halfs, the fitness, poor decisions and discipline. The ARU and provinces should again look at fine tuning the domestic competitions (not necessarily an APC) so that they naturally feed upwards and tie into the Wallaby program.
Overall there was less than a try in the match and if the ball stuck in the last five minutes the Wallabies could have stolen the game. There are great signs going forward.
Barry Wallace said | November 3rd 2008 @ 11:01am | Report comment
Agree with you entirely Spiro….must add my sixpence worth though.
Through circumstance had to watch 7’s coverage and their team are as bad or worse then Foxtel. Biased to the extreme.
Whenever the Wallabies win it is gracious, lose and the ref’s to blame.
If they could analyse subjectively I wouldn’t mind, however the AB’s have been the recipients of some amazing officiating at RWC’s and have had to wear it.
Tall poppy syndrome is a cross we have to bear as a Blacks supporter, however it is galling to listen to the diatribe dished out by Bray and co or Murdoch’s bunch.
Next time I’ll turn the sound off and listen to radio sport via the internet a bro?
Best…..Baz
ohtani's jacket said | November 3rd 2008 @ 11:22am | Report comment
I can’t stand Kearns and Martin. They make a mockery of every Test they commentate. Having said that, you don’t get commentators like Bill McLaren these days. Those post-war guys in the early days of the television medium were heavily influenced by the wireless. Society has moved on and a Bill McLaren would be outdated and old-fashioned in an era like this. It’s a dead art.
As for the rugby, Deans’ use of his bench has been poor all year, but I don’t recall Henry going to the bench this early in seasons past. It’s a coaching strategy that’s paid dividends, though it does give credence to the idea that the All Blacks are being stretched.
I didn’t watch the Test so I won’t comment on the scrums. On the highlights the Sivivatu pass looked a bit iffy. It doesn’t matter if it’s forward when McCaw catches it, but Sivivatu’s body position and passing action was a bit iffy. Those tries are almost always given because no-one assumes the passer could blow a simple overlap.
Wallabies defence is still a problem if teams are scoring simple tries in the corner.
Terry Kidd said | November 3rd 2008 @ 11:31am | Report comment
Spiro, I have got to say that I don’t agree with much you wrote, save the Fox commentary, and I wondered if we saw the same game. I agree with OME and Stillmissit, our scrum was ok, Baxter did well, Robinnson did well and Moore was good. I too have replayed the game twice and even more now think that Mr Evans was the one who lost the plot.
I can in no way agree with your comments on Baxter.
stillmissit said | November 3rd 2008 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
Terry Kidd - I think it is time to relook at the Aussie front row and in particular Baxter. I have never seen an established player who we all felt we knew his weaknesses and strengths, improve so much in such a short space of time.
I agree with OME the refs are living in a time warp and the opp is pulling back often to try and catch a penalty.
We have all had a poke at Baxter but we should also live in realtiy and acknowledge his improvement in the scrum, tight and loose.
Dunning I have less time for but would be open if his scrummaging improves. Let’s say we have 2 out of 3 (with Moore) in the front row, not world beaters but not dummies either.
ohtani's jacket said | November 3rd 2008 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
Reading the comments from the British press I think they’re fair enough. Stephen Jones was shit stirring as usual, but both of these sides are beatable. Whether a home union can beat them is a whole nother matter.
Terry Kidd said | November 3rd 2008 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
Stillmissit … re Baxter I agree entirely with you. Sorry I thought that was what I said. I don’t agree with Spiro’s comments on him.
AB Fan … yeah mate, I do agree. Get over it is the way to go, and I will …. probably by about 6pm tonight. Please til then, let me have a bitch.
True Tah said | November 3rd 2008 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
OJ,
I expect England will give us a tough time, England seem to grow an extra leg when they play at Twickenham…Italy’s forwards will be tough as well.
France and Wales will be easy meat for the Wallabies.
Four out of four is a tough ask, but its within the Wallabies capabilities.
NZ to win every game, and to win comfortably.
Mart said | November 3rd 2008 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
TT - agree regards NZ, but I suspect the Wallabies will beat Eng, if only becaue this is “start again”time for Eng (new coach etc). France I reckon may be hard tho……
Colin N said | November 3rd 2008 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
Mart,
Brian Moore’s an excellent co-commentator. Biased yes, but is still humerous and criticises England when they do something wrong and also praises the opposition when they do something well. He also has a very good knowledge of the game and talks about some of the small technicalities that some people may have missed or may not know about.
Agree with you about Guscott and Butler though. If you ever read his columns on BBC sport, they are pretty poor and half the time he doesn’t know what he is talking about. I also like listening to Jonathan Davies when a Welsh team isn’t involved as he is generally quite knowledgable about the game. But during yesterday’s game, he was unbelievably biased towards the Ospreys which got on my nerves quite a bit.
NickF said | November 3rd 2008 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
A couple of months ago ex-head of referees, Paddy O’Brien, had a spray at the :cheating” tactics of Australian scrums. He refered to NZ as “our” team, showing a very strong bias. I found these comments to be way out of line as, even thought he was not in the position of head of refereeing any more, he was still a very influential ex-ref.
The match in Hong Kong showed his influential comments hit their intended mark. Australia was always transgressing ans NZ could do no wrong. Rod McQueen said that you could always find a penalty in every scrum, ruck and maul. He did and it was nearly always against the Wallabes.
With a further 4 internationals and one more against the Babas, it will be interesting how many more refs follow suit
Spiro Zavos said | November 3rd 2008 @ 12:43pm | Report comment
Just one point about Al Baxter. It was noticeable that at the ‘touch’ call he wasn’t touching. This meant that his weight was going forward ready to jump the gun just before the referee called ‘engage’. The effect of this was to pull the Wallaby scrum forward to the hit before the ‘engage’ call. Then Luke Burgess, as he is entitled to do, fed the ball very quickly.
But when Baxter/Dunning do not get a good hit and have to struggle to hold their position they almost invariably go to ground.
This is the point about Baxter/Dunning. They contrive somehow to go to ground about half a dozen times in a Test, when other props might do this once or twice.
Also, Baxter/Dunning contribute virtually nothing to the ruck and maul contest. Baxter usually adopts a crouched position by the side of the ruck/maul guarding the halfback but rarely engaging in the physical contest of trying to get the ball, unlike Benn Robinson who gets his hands on the ball three or four times as much as Baxter/Dunning.
A prop worth his place these days has to be competent at scrum time (which I still maintain Baxter/Dunning are not) and strong around the field, especially in contesting for the ball at the breakdown. Tony Woodcock, for instance, has scored five tries for the All Blacks against the Wallabies in the last six Tests. This is stretching expectations of the prop’s job out of the scrums but they are expected to do something aside from posing at rucks and mauls.
‘They also serve who only stand and wait,’ does not apply to props or any other position on the rugby field.
Colin N said | November 3rd 2008 @ 12:43pm | Report comment
We’ve only beaten the Aussies at Twickenham because we have always had the upper hand in the forwards. When you go back to 2005, we were poor but totally dominated the scrum area. Had we been a good team back then, we should have put 40 points on you that day-especially as we had 70% of the possession.
Regarding the game yesterday, I was quite impressed by both teams but my main issue was what was going on at the breakdown. Both teams kept commiting ruck infringements that weren’t punished in the second-half, and although it was a NH ref, I doubt they will get away with it in the AI’s.
ohtani's jacket said | November 3rd 2008 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
That was Paul Honiss. I don’t think O’Brien has quit.
ohtani's jacket said | November 3rd 2008 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
I’m so sick of the words “ruck infringement.” When the opposition does it, it’s a ruck infringement. When your guy does it, it’s a legitmate attempt at the ball or all round good play, unless they’re whistled for it and then it’s the damn referee’s fault. I remember when England used to KILL us at the breakdown — legally or illegally — and I don’t recall Hill or Black ever getting a reputation for their ruck infringements.
stillmissit said | November 3rd 2008 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
Ohtani’s Jacket - couldnt agree more ruck infringement is so often subjective that you feel like writing a sub rule book for the breakdown so that we all agree what should and shouldnt happen. The commentators dont help in this regard as they set the tone for many supporters.
Loosing your fee, over a ruck, on a paddock like HK is very easy and ref’s should make an allowance without letting it go too far and turn into diving over the ball. It seemed he was looking to penalise anyone who lost their footing regardless and I think the AB’s cottoned onto that quicker than the Wallabies.
Have you noticed that the home broadcaster shows replays that only suit the home team ie SA rugby or Indian Cricket. Didnt see any of that on Sat night.
Unfortunately most refs have played little rugby in their time and most just at school. It shows!!!!
stillmissit said | November 3rd 2008 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
Spiro - will come back to you when I have had another look at the game.
Mart said | November 3rd 2008 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
Colin N - actually on reflection you’re right on Brian Moore, he usually does give Eng a beatup when they are playing poorly or doing dumb stuff (which is usually !)………
NickF said | November 3rd 2008 @ 3:18pm | Report comment
Ohtani, thabks, your right, it was Pail Honiss.
http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/news/monday-maul/2008/09/07/1220725854186.html
it makes interesting reading in context with the weekends game.
oikee said | November 3rd 2008 @ 3:50pm | Report comment
Whats the difference between the Wallabies and the Kangaroos? 60 minutes. Yes i agree with your points sheek, the league players are wasted but only at international level,. There’s no team close to them. Having said this i would love to see some of these players in the Union team. All off them if possible.
It would help the Wallabies who as you might know i dont rate, i class them as second rate citizens which is why i barrack for the All-Blacks. Until Union in this country bites the bullit and gets out into the public areana, the game is going no-where.
I have mentioned many times that league is light years ahead of Union, not as a play off as one against the other, simply because its true. Take Brad Thorn for the all-blacks, he retires from league and gets a starting possition for the blacks. ? He would not find a place in the current Kangaroo side yet hes playing test footy.
What i would love to see is the league players over-lapping into the union team if to only strengthen the team for the world game. Maybe this is a area that needs to be looked at, would not hurt and i dont think the players of league would say no. ?
Something needs to be done because the way the island teams are performing in league you are fast becoming a second class citizen at international level as well. The new found interest from these teams are creating many opportunities for leagues future growth. Put your heads in the sand and deny it as much as you like, but the aussie public is liking what it sees in the islanders games. Fiji is one team that is now on the map, thanks to a 42 / 6 drubbing of france.
The NRL is only going to become stronger over the next decade, the peace pipe might be the way to go, O’Neil got it right when he said to learn from league, what i am saying is to join with league and reap the rewards from playing both codes.
I happen to like both games so i dont wish for either to faulter.
True Tah said | November 3rd 2008 @ 4:02pm | Report comment
oikee
rugby is king in the Islands, in 2007 Fiji were one JP Pieterson tackle away from beating the would-be world champions. There are Fijian rugby players starring in the pro French and English leagues. Tonga were another team who caused a lot of South Africans near heart attacks in 2007.
There are Fijian rugby league players starring for Parkes, Ulladulla and Terrigal.
How will Fiji go when she come up against the Kangaroos? In the rugby world cup the big boys and little guys meet, it can have good results, where someone like Georgia almost knocks off Ireland, or it can result in a slaughter, like when the Wallabies put 142 on Namibia.
I think the RLWC was well organised in that a lot of these weaker teams are not forced to get raped by the Aussies, however if they can put 34 and 52 points on the Kiwis and Poms respectively I hate to see what would happen to the likes of Fiji, France or Scotland. Mate the Poms were deadset awful last night, no heart and handling skills attrocious, the bloody All Blacks would have made better opponents, at least they would have left nothing in the tank afterwards!
If Fiji is on the map thanks to a 42-6 drubbing of France, where does that put the poor old French?
Im sure the Aussie public likes what it sees in the Islanders games, considering a number of these guys have already played for NZ and/or NRL sides.
I would love the ARU to have the NRL’s domestic comp and they players in it though.
True Tah said | November 3rd 2008 @ 4:05pm | Report comment
oikee
you say the difference between the Kangaroos and Wallabies is 60 minutes.
I say the difference is the standard of their opposition.
Worlds Biggest said | November 3rd 2008 @ 4:05pm | Report comment
Well written Spiro once again. Before I give my 2 bobs worth of analysis is anyone at all surprised we ran out of gas in the game. The last competitive game most of the Wallabies played was September 13 which was 7 weeks ago. At least half if not more of the All Blacks squad were involved in the NPC Finals which concluded 2 weekends ago. Our blokes might be fit but they were not match fit and hardened when it counted. Perhaps this was the case in Brisbane when Carter slivered his way through Mortlock and Cross to seal the game. There is no doubting our blokes, talent, committment and ticker but that will only get you so far. They need more rugby so they are tough not only physically but mentally. The All Blacks have this
( in non World Cup years ) and our guys need this same mindset. There were some very good signs particularly the play of Burgess, Gitea, Mumm and Brown. The Scrum is still a mess and will be until Polatu-Nau is tried at Prop. I like Mitchell but he can be flakey at times and dropping that ball towards the end killed our chances. Sure Gitea should have kicked that penatly in 2nd half but that was offset by Carter missing 3 kicks at Goal. We were given some leeway with Donald starting at 10. The AB’s looked much more formidable when Carter went to 10 and Nonu to 12. Dingo would have been happy with some area’s but lineout was only so-so and scrum is just a never ending story of ineptitude. Once we fix these area’s and play more Rugby there is good times ahead for the Wallabies.
Millster said | November 3rd 2008 @ 4:12pm | Report comment
Oikee - True Tah put it very well in his latest post.
I am really opposed to your notion of “second class citizens”. The Kangas only win because everyone else plays shit. Not because they have to play particularly well. Winning all the time doesn’t make you “first class”. It just means you’re playing in a questionable competition.
In Rugby Union you have Aust, NZ, South Africa, England and France all at undeniably top level so to be anywhere in that top group of 5 or 6 is “first class”
In football likewise, you get close competitive games throughout the top 20 or so in the world so (using just one measure) anyone who makes it into the round of 16 at a World Cup is “first class” or pretty close.
Kangas winning all the time is the worst thing that is happening to League, not the best. It puts the validity of the whole international part of the code into question.
oikee said | November 3rd 2008 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
Well we might get the opportunity to see that True Tah, if Fiji knock off samoa then they will play the Kangarros in Sydney, but what you have said and what i am saying is dead right, these islanders are all starting to play league in the NRL and Super League, and each year we are seeing more and more, with the higher levels of skill being induced into them by playing in these comps makes for a bright future for league. More and More are headed in leagues direction because the money is there for them, yes a few go to union in france but not all , league is now taking up this short-fall so is reaping the rewards.
Good luck to the fijians if they make the semi, thats a big improvement already. What you have to understand is the jumiors dont head to france, so league has a good pathway for lots of them, i think someone metioned that the under 20’s toyota cup this year was 60% islanders. Now thats scary for the future of league and its domination. If we keep these players playing for there nations then oz dominance will be affected. Plus they are getting paid better for playing in this comp.
Now be honest, could you ever see union having a under 20’s comp made for t/v veiwing.
As for france, they have alot of work to do, but given there talent pool are not 2 bad, if they had unions talent pool they would be close to the best as they were 50 year ago.
oikee said | November 3rd 2008 @ 4:30pm | Report comment
Dont take it too serious Millster, what i mean by second class citizen is meaning not that good, i am not saying they are anything but that, its just a term i used to say they are not flying 1st class at the momnet, that might change in a year or two. I am not saying they are yobbos.
oikee said | November 3rd 2008 @ 4:39pm | Report comment
Just one more thing Millster, the Kangaroos are what every team wants to be, dont try to downplay this fact. If the socceroos or the wallabies were winning all the time then we would be singing there praises. Because the Kangas are such a good team and the NRL is the premier comp then we all try to knock them or want them to lose. Give it time and once they lose you will knock them again. While they are winning and by how much does not bother me. I have enjoyed the lower divisions playing, some of those scores were by large amounts, did i enjoy them any less. No. Did you not enjoy the 5-0 win by chelsea , ?
Millster said | November 3rd 2008 @ 4:44pm | Report comment
I’d say being consistently competitive with the All Blacks is undoubtedly first class.
Where my problem really lies is that people talk up the Kangas but in reality they don’t have to be much better than the reserves of an NRL club side to give most other nations a hiding.
I’m also quite surprised at how far apart the other results are. I had a quick look at all Mass Gathering results so-far and only one has been within a converted try - the rest have been large gaps.
Millster said | November 3rd 2008 @ 4:52pm | Report comment
I enjoyed the 5-0 win by Chelsea because I know next weekend there is a ManU or a Liverpool or a half-dozen other teams who will make them work really hard. Even more if you count them against teams in Europe (Italy, France, Germany etc). So a win like that is not a given. Its not odds on. Its a good thing rather than just a “here we go again” thing.
The thing is Oikee many more people DO sing the praises of the Socceroos and the Wallabies than the Kangas because even if they don’t win, they are in a hard honourable competition that is not full of easy-beats. As I said before, for these teams, coming 2nd, 5th, 10th is a great achievement in itself because we are talking world class sport and world class opposition.
I completely disagree that every team wants to be in such a nonsense competition that they are odds on every time and have no real opposition. It makes the wins very, very hollow and meaningless. It also means the only drama potential is on the downside. If they win, who cares. If they lose, its a national disgrace. I would say that outside of die-hard League circles most people see this RLWC kind of like they see a schoolyard fight where the ugly bully is beating up on the sick scrawny kids. Its a kind of cruel joke, and no one comes out well at the other end.
sheek said | November 3rd 2008 @ 5:19pm | Report comment
This is a question that is vexing me - are the Kangaroos that good because the opposition make them look good? Or are they the real deal? As always, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
England/Great Britain have a lot to answer for. As the nation that gave us so many formalised modern sports, they rarely aim up these days. And haven’t done so for many decades.
In cricket, England have never won the world cup, despite making the final 3 times. In rugby league, England/Great Britain last won the world cup in 1972, & then on a countback. In rugby union, England won the world cup in 2003, & were finalists in 2007.
With regards to 2003, they ought to have won with the talented & experienced team at their disposal. In 2007, they repeated the Wallabies effort of 2003 by over-achieving. In soccer, England are abysmal for a supposed first-rate power.
If England/Great Britain were USA, there would be no ‘gimmies’. The yanks would still be grinding everyone’s noses into the collective turf. Of course, we can never know how chemically enhanced American athletes are!
The Kangaroos are a big fish in a small pond. Would the ABs have given Inglis & Slater the same latitude? Unlikely. Would Inglis & Slater still been able to make something out of nothing? On occasions, yes. As did Ella & Campese in the past.
But make no mistake, the Kangaroos are mostly superior athletes to the Wallabies. Had the Kangaroos been brought up on rugby union & playing the ABs the way they played England, & the way the Wallabies played, then the Kangaroos would have beaten the ABs.
For the nay-sayers, it’s true one or 2 or 3 league players in a Wallaby team, they don’t stand out as especially exceptional. But put 10, or 12, or 13, in a Wallaby team, & assuming they’ve had several years intuition, it would be a different story.
Consider this team - 1-Josh Perry(K), 2-Cameron Smith(K), 3-Steve Price(K), 4-James Horwill(W), 5-Dan Vickerman(W), 6-Rocky Elsom(W), 7-George Smith(W), 8-Richard Brown(W), 9-Luke Burgess(W),10-Jonathon Thurston(K), 11-Lote Tuqiri(W), 12-Darren Lockyer(c-K), 13-Stirling Mortlock(W), 14-Glen Inglis(K), 15-Billy Slater(K). Bench: 16-Steve Moore(W), 17-Petero Civoniceva(K), 18-Anthony Laffranchi(K), 19-Wycliffe Palu(W), 20-Scott Prince(K), 21-Matt Giteau(W), 22-Peter Hynes(W).
That’s 3 Kangaroos & 5 Wallabies in the pack, & 4 Kangaroos & 3 Wallabies in the backs. Also 4 Wallabies & 3 Kangaroos on the bench. In the washup, I have selected 12 Wallabies & 10 Kangaroos.
However, significantly, the Kangaroos make up the entire frontrow, currently Australian rugby’s achilles heel. And the chief playmakers at 10 & 12 (Thurston & Lockyer) are Kangaroos. This is another weakness in Australian rugby whereby Giteau, Barnes & Mortlock are not at the cutting edge of attacking, imaginative rugby.
The firepower in our composite team outside backs is awesome, while the loose forwards & locks, when we have our best available, are certainly up to the task. As the selections indicate, the weaknesses in Australian rugby right now are in the quality & toughness of the frontrow, & the playmaking skills of those at 10 & 12.
Remember, 2 or 3 Kangaroos won’t make a significant difference to the Wallabies. But 10 or 12 might certainly do so! And it’s where the superior rugby league athletes can make a difference should also be appreciated.
Justin said | November 3rd 2008 @ 5:24pm | Report comment
That missed tackle count could go through the roof with Mr Lockyer at 12
Mart said | November 3rd 2008 @ 5:36pm | Report comment
Sheek - for me you’ve sort of hit the nail on the head. The Kangas are great but there is no real comp elsewhere in the world that breeds an internat team like the Kangas. Put simply no one cares in any great numbers about RL. I was at last night’s game and it was interesting that the many poms in the pub before the game (a) all had northern accents and were sporting Hull / Widnes / Leigh tops (b) all thought Eng had no hope and were here for the holiday (there were a large number of female partners along too). This doesn’t excuse the poor Pom display (although if we were being charitable I’d also admit that whatever luck was around deserted them 100% last night) but my point is that the player pool / interest is relatively small. Fair comment that the Poms aint good at sport across the board but it’s just not part of the fabric (playing / winning) as it is in Aus. Then again last night’s crowd was high 30,000s - not too good for the supposed marquee match of the RLWC. So where’s the support here (answer - NSW / QLD) ? If any Pom team got serious / organised they’d be competitive (the Eng rugby team around 2001 - 3 showed that) but there just isn’t the drive to consistently do that…..
True Tah said | November 3rd 2008 @ 5:39pm | Report comment
Sheek,
I really dont know if having all these Kangaroos in the Wallaby side would necessarily help us out - for an example, I think Kiwi rugby league has been pretty bloody competitive for a fair chunk of their history, when you consider that they have a playing pool a mere fraction of what the Kangaroos and All Blacks have. The issue Australian rugby has is to do with forward play, and I cant see how players like Mason would make a hell of a lot of difference there…ask any Aussie rugby supporter to name their side, and they will generally start at 15, which sort of illustrates the whole problem.
The Pommy side were deadset disgraceful, personally I think the All Blacks would have done a better job last night against the Roos, some of those tries were soft as…it must come as a wake up call to the ESL, as to how hard it really is, the defence is lacking big time…and I have a feeling things are only going to get worse for pommy rugby league, the union and several of the clubs over there are cashed up big time, and they are already taking some of the coaching know-how, soon a lot of the good players will be looking at this, and no doubt clubs like Wigan and St Helens will start looking at entering sides in the comp as thats where the $$$ will be.
Dave said | November 3rd 2008 @ 5:42pm | Report comment
Although not a Rugby person there is one game that l would certainly pay to see (if it could be arranged of course)…the Wallabies vs the Kangaroos. From what l gather could be a little bit of spice in that one. AFL modified their rules to play internationally now why couldn’t the Rugbies do it to play each other…once and for all who would get the bragging rights as the best Rugby team in Oz? No doubt some will say there is nothing to gain by it but my suspicions are there is too much to lose.
Millster said | November 3rd 2008 @ 5:46pm | Report comment
I’m with Dave. Would be awesome.
sheek said | November 3rd 2008 @ 6:12pm | Report comment
True Tah,
I’m looking at the league as athletes. I’m also assuming that if they had the same opportunities to learn & play rugby as the rugbyites, they would more or less, be just as good at union as they are at league.
I’ve thrown in a few generalisations, I know. But critical to all this, is this.
1. I would say the quality talent split, as opposed to overall playing numbers, is about 60-40, or even 65-35 in league’s favour.
2. Part of the problem is that union players are not as athletic as their league counterparts. Why? One thing we need to do is give our leading players more quality playing time. National comp anyone? And not as fit, as Spiro alluded in the beginning. Nothing compares to match fitness. Just ask the ABs in 2007!
3. Rugby simply has to get down into the ‘boondocks’ - junior rugby - & start planting the seed for the grass to grow. We need more player participation numbers. More players hopefully means more competition, more desperation, better end product at the Wallabies. Just like the ABs.
sheek said | November 3rd 2008 @ 6:32pm | Report comment
True Tah,
You touched on an interesting possible scenario. It’s not unreasonable that in 5 years time, the only place where rugby league will be played with any authority is in Australia & PNG. And PNG is not an economic or political heavyweight.
Assuming rugby league was swallowed up in England (ESL), the only other cashed up comp besides Australia’s NRL, then Australian rugby league would be horribly isolated.
Given that scenario, would the ARL/NRL go to rugby union & say - “Okay, we can both get something out of this. We’re obliged to play rugby union, but we might be able to force some minor changes with the IRB. Also, you need our players, both numbers & quality. But we will dominate with the clubs in any national comp”.
So rugby could get its national comp, with the NRL clubs dominant in an ARU comp. But at least most of those famous clubs would survive. A possible 20 team national comp in 2015 - 8 Sydney clubs, 2 Brisbane clubs, one each from Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Canberra, Illawarra, Central Coast, Newcastle, Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast & North Qld.
8 x Sydney clubs - Sydney Roosters (East-Central); South Sydney Rabbitohs (South-East); Manly Sea Eagles (Northern Beaches); Penrith (North-West); Parramatta Eels (West-Central); Canterbury Bulldogs (Inner South-West); West Sydney Tigers (South-West); Cronulla Sharks (Southern Shires).
2 x Brisbane clubs - Brisbane Broncos & South Qld Crushers.
One city/one club teams - Perth Force; Adelaide Rams; Melbourne Storm; Canberra Brumbies; Illawarra-St.George Dragons; Central Coast Bears; Newcastle Knights; Gold Coast Titans; Sunshine Coast Stingrays & North Qld Cowboys.
Of the old rugby union icons, only the Perth Force, Canberra Brumbies & Sunshine Coast Stingrays get a guernsey. No place even for the Randwick Galloping Greens. A bittersweet victory for rugby union?!
Matt said | November 3rd 2008 @ 6:33pm | Report comment
Oikee, I think you’re dreaming if you think the Island nations are about to give up playing union and start playing League instead. The only reason half the nations are taking part in the RLWC is because of their proximity to the NRL/Super League and the fact that the game of Rugby Union exists for League to leverage off the overlapping skillsets.
Ireland, France, Scotland, Tonga, Fiji, Samoa and New Zealand are all Union playing nations where kids grow up playing 7’s or 15’s. In some of these nations they might use the Rugby skillsets to give league a go. A few stay playing league, but most will stick to Union because it is the game that is by far the most popular there.
The large number of pacific island boys playing in the Toyota Cup, that you suggest will do much for the game of league if ‘we keep these players playing for there nations’ area actually Australian kids of Island extraction. So the strength and popularity of the Rugby League in the islands is not represented by the Toyota cup. Instead, these numbers simply represent Australia and the changing demographic of immigration. What is means is that the Kangaroos will continue to pick the best and give the rest to the Island sides (just like now).
Leagues domination will only occur in Australia and Northen England. Everywhere else it is well out shadowed by Union. Heck, the second best side in the world (NZ) only has playing numbers teetering on 15,000. Compared to 140,000 in Union. The odd union players like Benji Marshall will get plucked out of NZ and become a great, but the other 19 out of 20 will go to Union. This is why the Kangaroos win like every team wants to do, but they live in a sporting world that no one wants to be in. A world where you’re nearest rivals are lucky to beat you because you simply are the only one taking the game seriously. How much would the Kangaroos desire to have a rival worthy of an even battle, where they didn’t need to play at their worst to lose a match. How much would they rather they had a rival like the AB’s to content with rather than the Kiwis?
Finally, so as not to make this all about League. I too was impressed with the Aussie scrummaging on the weekend. Robinson looks to be the goods for a good while into the future. I have never been a fan of Tialata, especially at tighthead. Robinson looked to be at least the equal of Tialata at scrum time, but it was against Mealamu instead of Hore. When Sommerville came on the AB’s began to get definite dominancy. Woodcock always had the better of Baxter and Baxter did well to disguise this fact for most of the game. Woodcock did get away with one too when Baxter was unfairly penalised. But the Wallabies, while looking improved at the scrum, were constantly trying to hit early and drop the bind.
oikee said | November 3rd 2008 @ 6:35pm | Report comment
International rugby would never embarrass itself like that. All it would take is 12 months for the league guys to understand the rules, most of them already do, as shown by gasnier who is playing union, so 12 months and with 2 extra players on the feild, nite nite wallabies. Thats the reality, they have 2 extra players and you still cant score trys. So if league let the players eat those burgers and did not stop them from putting weight on then had another 2 grorillas running around the feild with lets say another 2 large backs, 6′5 , i would hate to be on the end of that mauling, you go back to dreamland millster, these guys are at the pinnacle of any sport. They hoan there skill and passion at origin level.
Sheek, your idea i would love to see, and if they did this then australia would be unbeatable, because the league guys would also bring passion along with them. This is what should happen to league and union in this country, if we did this then the 2 codes would get along. And just maybe that kicking on the 1st play would dissapear, its such a waste of posession. The league guys would run and pass the damm ball because they would not be afraid of dropping the bloody thing.
True Tah said | November 3rd 2008 @ 6:50pm | Report comment
oikee,
have you seen Gasnier playing for Stade Francais?
Im asking because Ive asked Foxtel is they would be interested in