By Spiro Zavos
November 12th 2008 @ 2:12am
Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates..
---------------
Southern Hemisphere invasion makes a strong start
France defeated Argentina in a tough, abrasive contest, with bodies flying around the slippery field. But this was the only victory by a Northern Hemisphere team over the Sourthern Hemisphere invaders. The Pacific Islander side is not counted in this context as it’s a pick-up side that is generic rather than specific.
South Africa defeated Wales in a pulsating match in which both sides showed that they should have strong showings at the next RWC in 2011. Australia had to pull off a spectacular try by Quade Cooper to get in front of a persistent Italy. And New Zealand defeated Scotland reasonably comfortably.
France were quite impressive, especially in the forwards.
They seem to have found a scrum that has been lacking for several years. They seemed less brittle, too, under the intense physical play of the Pumas.
For their part, the Pumas merely replicated the up-and-under game they did so well at the 2007 RWC. But without the licence to mount continual waves of rolling mauls, they lacked a way of going through and over their opponents.
Wales were very impressive, and have unearthed a devastating number 8 in Andy Powell. The backs, especially Shane Williams, were sharp. But against the aggressive defence of the Springboks, Wales seemed to lack an organiser to exploit the overlaps that were created with some dynamic loose forward play.
The Springboks seem to have found, at last, a decent five-eighths in Rian Pienaar. His kicking game, particularly, turned Wales around time after time. Curiously, after establishing a handy lead that was never really going to be overtaken, the Springboks went into their shell and played the narrowest of games.
At one time they had the entire fifteen players gathered around the ruck, like a tired rugby league side.
So we had the rare experience of a Northern Hemisphere team, Wales, playing Southern Hemisphere rugby and a Southern Hemisphere team, South Africa, playing Northern Hemisphere rugby.
One of the features of the Wales-South Africa Test was the excellent refereeing of the Irishman Alain Rolland. He refereed the 2007 RWC final, and with his exact and sympathetic rulings, which you’d expect from a former international player who understands the game at every level, you’d hope that he is going to be allowed to do the RWC 2011 finals, too.
This brings us to Wayne Barnes and the Scotland-New Zealand Test.
Scotland, to its credit, tried to move the ball around. But like virtually all the major teams with the exception of the All Blacks, they do not seem to have systems in place to run the ball successfully from turnovers and broken play.
To my mind, it’s all about the positioning of the first-receiver in these situations. All the teams, again with the exception of New Zealand, tend to stand the first-receiver in broken play in the pocket, often behind the ruck or maul. There is only one play from this sort of positioning, and that is a kick.
New Zealand stands the receiver flat and he can then pass another flat pass to an outside back and the attack is behind the defence in a flash.
Back to Wayne Barnes, the 29 year-old barrister who penalised France twice in the entire 2007 RWC quarter-final against New Zealand.
Paddy O’Brien is clearly grooming him - unfortunately - for great things in the ranks of the leading referees. I say unfortunately because he referees like a prosecuting attorney forever trying to establish quilt.
There were four penalties in the first four minutes of the Test, and one sending off of a Scots player. Thereafter, Barnes found fault at virtually every ruck and maul, even though he sympathetically thanked players when they did something right, in his eyes
Unfortunately, too, Barnes is quite inaccurate in many of his calls, despite his certitude.
He also, in the last 20 minutes, allowed Scotland to infringe with impunity with and without the ball in all the rucks and mauls while penalising New Zealand, with or without the ball. The All Blacks turned down a penalty kick under the posts to take a scrum, to the delight of the crowd, only to be penalised for ‘going early.’
W.G.Grace is supposed to have said in his high-pitched voice to an umpire who gave him out: “The crowd has come to see me bat, not to see you umpire.”
Someone in authority should make the same point to Barnes.
As the Sunday Times writer Mark Palmer noted: “Barnes was evidently keen to be in the vanguard of the IRB’s new policy of zero tolerance towards breakdown excesses that were previously indulged.”
Matthew Alverez. the statistician of the ARU, says that in the Tests played this year by the Wallabies under the regular laws of rugby there were, on average, 18 long arms penalties a match. Under the fullish ELVs, there were 8 long arm penalties a Test on average. And under the reduced ELVs the average has become 18 long arm penalties again.
Moreover, under the long arm penalty regime, we are having all sorts of problems with the scrums with referees reluctant to give a full-arm penalty for a perceived misdeamour when they would have sorted things out quickly with a short-arm penalty under the full ELVs.
The argument for players winning Tests rather than officious referees like Barnes and Lewis at al has already been made quite convincingly in this first series of Northern Hemisphere-Southern Hemisphere Tests.
If only the commentators and the officials could see this obvious truth.
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...
(34)
To answer your question, Paul Okon is their coach. He is relatively young...
Loading ...
Rowdy said | November 12th 2008 @ 2:28am | Report comment
I can’t remember the last test where the reports didn’t mention the ref, which should be the yardstick by which they’re judged.
As for hogging the limelight and officious, maybe you could make the same point re: Dickh*adson and Walsh, both of whom seem to think they’re the main attraction. The former in particular, who ruined what might have been a good game between England and the ABs in 2004 with his magic vision.
By the way, when did penalties and free kicks become long-arms and short-arms ? It sounds really naff.
Colin N said | November 12th 2008 @ 3:00am | Report comment
Don’t blame Barnes for what the IRB have instructed the Northern Hemisphere referees to do and that’s be strict at the breakdown. I think Barnes had a good game, except at the scrum, where the All Blacks kept infringing.
Darryl said | November 12th 2008 @ 5:46am | Report comment
Must be great being a kiwi rugby writer in australia, with the exception of course in world cup years.
I hope the wallabies make quade cooper / barnes the long term inside-centre option, this mortlock thing is stupid.
Benjamin said | November 12th 2008 @ 5:59am | Report comment
I think if anything it is more accurate to say that the ‘Southern Hemisphere invasion’ has made an indifferent start.
South Africa looked confused and had no discernible gameplan and the general opinion seems to be they were lucky not to lose. The ethos displayed by that SA team was completely at odds with the gameplan that PDV preached during the 3N which rather worryingly suggests that the various indignities suffered there were a complete waste of time. Pienaar’s assured performance will be a real boost but unless SA show tangible improvement in their next game then there must be serious issues over the long-term ambitions of PDV. A win is a win but I think all SA fans will expect more form the world champions.
Australia stumbled through their game, however the forward improvement will undoubtedly be a real filip to Deans and Williams. The worry will be whether the backs can kick on and put their performance down to a bad day at the office. The loss of Barnes will no doubt be a hinderance as he is most likely going to be the key organiser of the Australian backline for the next few years and thus Mortlock and Cross has a touch of the ‘holding operation’ look about it.
On a different note, I think we really must put this fallacy about SH rugby to one side. During recent years the only team to play with this implied SH style has been NZ. SA have always been another England and Australia despite glimpses of natural flair have been very, very mechanical. Aside from NZ the majority of attempted loose rugby has been from Wales and Ireland.
Gordo said | November 12th 2008 @ 8:46am | Report comment
Spiro - Thanks for the analysis of the first wave of the attack, some casualties but a clear victory for the invaders. As even the most strident opposition propagandist admits, “a win is a win”.
Now deeper into enemy territory with the second wave. Will the statue be torn down? Or is the war just getting started….
Benjamin said | November 12th 2008 @ 8:58am | Report comment
Propoganda? Is this a rugby forum or am I confused? Statues? Victory.. invaders?
Greg Russell said | November 12th 2008 @ 11:28am | Report comment
Brendan Telfer, the “doyen” of NZ sports radio, likened Wayne Barnes to Vladimir Putin both in looks and temperament. Shall we just call him Vlad?
Seriously, Telfer also made the point that Barnes had absolutely no rapport with the players; no matter how good Barnes is technically (and this is something that is much debated), it is a matter of fact that all the best rugby referees of recent decades have had excellent rapport with players on the field.
Marty said | November 12th 2008 @ 11:37am | Report comment
The crowd has come to watch the players not the ref’s…. Spot on. Surely this is a view that everyone agree’s on. And the perfect advertisment for the elv’s. The quality of the play deciding the outcome of the game and not the official’s. The ref’s seem to be in the spotlight a lot more these days. They need to take more of a back seat and let the game entertain. Against Italy the players seemed to be stopping for drinks and penalties every few minutes. I don’t want to to feel the need to know the ref’s names and talk about them. Mbe occasionally out of respect, when they’ve had a positive impact on the game.
Worlds Biggest said | November 12th 2008 @ 12:43pm | Report comment
Benjamin, I agree with you re the war jargon that Gordo, Loges et al love to conjure up. Let’s stick to talking about the game we all love.
LeftArmSpinner said | November 12th 2008 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
england’s first real test under Johnson. Lets see how they go?
Two questions will be answered:
1. Can Wallabies Pack achieve parity against England?
2. Can England run the ball?
age old questions that i hope dont contain too much jargon for WB!
Gatwell said | November 12th 2008 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
LAS - two easy answers to your questions. One: No. Two: yes.
Doctor Best said | November 12th 2008 @ 2:22pm | Report comment
If you ever have to answer two easier questions than Left Arm Spinner asked, Gatwell, I’ll eat my stethoscope. The English pack isn’t the best they’ve had, but our pack isn’t the best we’ve had, either, and England have had better packs than us, at Twickenham, for years.
They’ll have a great front row on Saturday (Sheridan, Vickery to name but two), and we’ll have an improved one. They’ll have a solid second row, and we’ll have a brave one. They’ll have first class loosies, and we’ll have George Smith.
As for the backs, we’ll have a pretty good halfback, and an I/C at five eight coming off two forgettable games, while they have Care and Cipriani. Advantage England. We’ll have parity at 12 & 13 if Morto soaks his hands in warm water before the game, and Cross can catch Jamie Noon. But they’ll have a better, faster and more confident back three in Sackey, Moyne and Armitage.
Alas, our depleted team has about as much chance as a Red Cross volunteer at a vampires’ ball.
ohtani's jacket said | November 12th 2008 @ 3:12pm | Report comment
Yeah it was an indifferent start, but I can understand why Gatland was filthy at his players. I don’t think the Northern Hemisphere should be losing as many of these Tests as they do.
Davo said | November 12th 2008 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
Geez Good Doctor your prognosis is not confident for the green and gold huh ? If Pocock wouldnt’ be in the England team I’ll eat your stethoscope, and he probably wont even be on our bench, so our back row must have something going for it. But I am still worried in the tight five. England’s back three seem to have big wraps on the back of one game…although I admit Sackey has had a very good couple of seasons in international football. Still, a back three of Hynes, Ioane and Mitchell would lose nothing in pace and confidence.
Spiro - if the Pac Islanders had won, I am sure you would’ve claimed them as part of the SH Invaders.
brad said | November 12th 2008 @ 4:13pm | Report comment
Refs can be strict at the breakdown but they have to show consistency. without consistency playesr will continue to infringe and we end up with 100 penalties per game. IF the law states no hands in the ruck and referess always penalise then players will stop putting their hands in the ruck unfortunately, and as illustrated by Barnes in famous quarterfinal, the ref can be selective in applying the rule. We do not need any of these ELV’s etc only consistent refereeing.
Tarpo said | November 12th 2008 @ 5:39pm | Report comment
Brad, ELVs or not I think we are unanimous in that we all want consistant refs!
Terry O'Brien said | November 12th 2008 @ 6:02pm | Report comment
Nice one LAS, as for the Wallaby pack gaining parity with England. Phil Vickery and Andrew Sheridan are going to be a real handful up front. I think our back 5 are very competitive if McMenimen can stay on the field. I don’t know much about most of the English backs so hard to comment on that. It’s a new look backline. Great to see Cooper get on the bench. What about Waugh’s omission ?. Could this be it for him now at Wallaby level now Pocock is on the scene ?
Worlds Biggest said | November 12th 2008 @ 6:05pm | Report comment
Why is Lote on this Tour ?. Can anyone explain why an injured player is on tour costing the ARU money when they are broke.
Peter N said | November 12th 2008 @ 6:30pm | Report comment
I have to agree with Benjamin on the Boks. I couldnt stand the fact that the Boks have less posession and territory against teams with all their resources in the forwards. To me that is plain and simple poor poor coaching.
They were driving me insane but we have to agree that of the 3 Tri Nations teams the Boks faced by far the biggest threat. 74000 rabid fans and an inform Wales side looking for a scrap is way above a poor Scotland on a hiding to nothing.
Chuntsah said | November 12th 2008 @ 7:09pm | Report comment
“They’ll have first class loosies, and we’ll have George Smith.”
Doctor, with all due respects, the Wallaby backrow… looking good I reckon, better than good. Brownie is in great form, versatile, keen as mustard and just getting better. Pocock in the wings. Palu, Smith… enough said. As Spiro implied earlier in the week Waugh’s days in gold have surely come to an end.
The Wallabies are surely flush with outside centres and inside at five-eights, but there’s huge potential there. I can’t help feeling it will gel with time. Cross will drift outside his man and has plenty of toe. I think he’s deceptive that way and can so often get the ball away in contact.
I would be really keen to see the back three take the ball into contact more often than they did against Italy and create something. Let’s not kick… and kick… and kick…
maxa said | November 12th 2008 @ 8:18pm | Report comment
WTF? TWO PROVEN SCRUMMAGERS LEFT OUT OF THE TEAM TO FACE ENGLAND, SEKOPE KEPU AND BEN ALEXANDER, THE ONLY ONES WITH ENOUGH SIZE TO TAKE ON SHERIDAN AND THEY ARE LEFT OUT? SORRY ROBBIE BUT DUNNING IS IS A DISGRACE!
Colin N said | November 12th 2008 @ 9:23pm | Report comment
Some Aussies are over complementing our pack. Your locks are better than ours. I would say that the back-row battle is fairly even and I would say that our front row edges yours atm. I’m disappointed that Johnson has dropped Stevens as he is a good scrummager and can be devastating in the lose. Having said that there’s something in Vickery that seems to bring the best out of him.
Cipriani had a poor game against the PI’s and has only come back from injury. But watch out for Danny Care-he has continued his awesome form from last season. Our back three looked good against the PI’s, but whether they can reproduce that against better opposition remians to be seen. I’m not a big fan of Giteau at 10 and it’s a shame Barnes is injured. Centres is a difficult one to call. Mortlock is dynamic but Noon is defensively sound. I haven’t seen much of Cross but I’ve heard good things. But all in all, it should be an interesting game. What I like about Deans is that he seems to get the best out of everybody.
Regarding Barnes, as I said before, he is just putting into practice what the IRB have told him. He can’t win because some people criticise refs for not being friendly and some say the opposite-he just can’t win. When you’ve seen him as consistantly as I have in the GP and HC, you’ll know what a good ref he is. He’s just been under the spotlight because of the WC, which I guess is his fault, but it doesn’t take awat what a good ref he is.
Benjamin said | November 12th 2008 @ 9:40pm | Report comment
I’d agree with your pack assessment Colin. This is definitely one of the weakest packs that England have fielded in a long time. I would have rather seen Shaw starting and Kennedy on the bench. Kennedy proved what a lineout innovator he is against the PI and I’m not sure it makes sense to disrupt a unit (2 and 5) that had clicked so well. Palmer is neither a 4 nor a 5 and I don’t think he is powerful enough to dominate the ruck.
I think Vickery definitely has the edge over Stevens on the international stage. Stevens has often been inconsistent for England and although I don’t think Vickery has done anything to merit his promotion, this England team/pack is simply too inexperienced not to include such a player. Hard on Stevens but he didn’t really consolidate his position last week.
Other than my well voiced displeasure over the 2nd row combos I’m pretty content with the back row. Croft didn’t particularly stand out but Johnson is doing the right thing by picking consistently. It will be interesting to see how Rees fares against Smith but obviously the genesis of that battle begins with the front five.
All in all it should be an exciting match. The loss of Barnes is pretty stark but this is the best chance Australia will have had in years to win at Twickenham (I am aware that they won in 2006 (?) ). It makes a pleasant change to be excited about games at Twickenham given the past four years that we have had to endure.
westy said | November 12th 2008 @ 11:07pm | Report comment
Benjamin…I to look forward to the game ….win lose or draw i hope the Wallabies do not engage in mindless kicking evident in the game against Italy…..it really does detract from the game …this kicking is not tactical it is an admission of no other constructive option….I tend towards the view the English have a superiority in the forwards but not as decisive as many believe. It is the backs that concern me more………….their disorganisation is too evident at times.
bennalong said | November 13th 2008 @ 1:02am | Report comment
I have to keep on harping here, the biggest hurdle to overcome will be the ERV’s with full arm penalties and Northern hemisphere refs. They don’t necessarily champion the running game.
To totally disagree with Spiro. I thought the refereeing enabled Wales to get back into the game. Relentless punishment of the boks ! (I barrack for Wales but the prospect of a similar display awaiting the Wallabies had me feeling queasy)
Fashion? seems to dictate that territory is all important–hence all the kicking.
But a whistle happy ref can keep you on your try line whenever he chooses. What chance the poms will be the ones that complain of bias?
Benjamin said | November 13th 2008 @ 1:13am | Report comment
Westy, I wouldn’t actually be that surprised if the Australian forwards gained equality in the tight phases, I really wouldn’t. However the issue in a lot of English minds is that we have often heard of Australianforward rejuvination, specifically prior to the last WC. Could this weekend prove that claim true? We’ll have to wait and see. Let’s not forget also that any team can have a very good day and any team can have a very bad day. A bad day for the Wallabies may not necessarily mean that all is lost. The mark of a good pack is consistent performances and I think over the 3N the Australian 8 improved steadily. The Italy game seems a continuation in that trend. The signs are good.
The issue of the backs is more problematic. Mortlock and Cross do not go well. When they play in midfield there is a lack of direction. To that extent I am still unconvinced that Giteau is the driving force at 10 that Australia need. Barnes will be a big loss.
I agree about the kicking, it is a complete admission of conservatism. However that is top end rugby. Win = everything.
mcxd said | November 13th 2008 @ 2:21am | Report comment
excuse my ignorance regarding kicking but what happened to kicking for field position rather than striaght up and down ala AAC. If a team has a good lineout why not trust it to win the ball back near the try line ? whys this not used since the ELVs ?
Colin N said | November 13th 2008 @ 3:08am | Report comment
mcxd,
I don’t quite understand what your saying but because of the ELV’s, if a team kicks it out on the full after the ball has been passed (or taken) back into the 22 then it’s a line-out to the opposition from where it was kicked in the 22. the problem is that when a team is clearing the danger, they are unlikely to try and kick for the line-out just in case the ball goes out on the full. So therefore they usually bang it straight up the field.
Regarding the kicking for territory thing, teams are still using it when there is space behind the winger or full-back. Ronan O’Gara used this tactic to perfection against Sale in the recent HC game and Hodgson still does it for Sale under the ELV’s.
mcxd said | November 13th 2008 @ 6:12am | Report comment
hi colin, yeah funny alot of people say they dont understand what i say.. ill try and clarify what i mean..
i understand about not passing back in the 22 and therefore not allowed to kick out but even when its not passed back ive noticed lately the tendancy to kick the ball and purposely keep it in ie.. AAC and his up and unders which go no where. and to be honest its not just AAC alot of teams are doing it.
I was just asking why this tendancy has occured espcially under the ELVs ? it seems a bit of a random play as too much is left to chance. What happendd to the good old kick to the corner and trust your forwards to attakc the opposition throw.
Benjamin said | November 13th 2008 @ 6:17am | Report comment
mcxd, I would say that the numbers rule means that the art of lineout stealing should be dead and buried but the Wales game proved that a good jumper (Matfield) will always expose a poor thrower (Matthew Rees) regardless of numbers. Aside from that in theory kicking to touch would give the kicking team time to set their defence so I’m as flummoxed as you. I assume it’s because the kicking team knows that the team receiving the kicked ball will not run the ball back and so they are hoping to receive a bad kick, thus it’s a kicking stand-off. Who makes the first mistake sort of thing. Or.. the kicking team might be hoping that the receiving team will run the ball back and be turned over.
Terry O'Brien said | November 13th 2008 @ 7:07am | Report comment
Cooper to come in early in the 2nd half if backline is faltering at either 10 or 12.
Colin N said | November 13th 2008 @ 7:36am | Report comment
I see what you mean now. Benjamin’s probably write about his assessment about why more teams are kicking poorly. But I will add in another possible reason.
It may be a knock on effect from the kicking 22 metre rule as because more kicks are going in play there are inevitably going to be more kicks coming back. Also teams are scared of running the ball back, especially in the NH because of the stricter laws at the breakdown now, as Benjamin said-in case they get turned over.
Homer said | November 13th 2008 @ 2:52pm | Report comment
I actually think the English will revert to a kicking game and try and use the pace of the back three. It is obvious to anyone that AAC has a rubbish kick so by putting him under some high balls or kicking to the back pocket there is the chance the express pace team can catch him and force a turnover or win the scrum feed. At worst AAC will lose ground on the kick. If AAC does get a high ball up then i think we will see some attacking loose play from England.
I think george Smith will have a massive impact, he reads the game better than anyone and could secure/steal some cruicial ball and frustrate the English team, especially with Brown backing him up. Brown has more pace and agression than Palu and is ideal to start, then let cliffy run hard at the young English backs in the last 25mins.
If our scrum does get over the poms then Stephen Moore will be the architect and Robinson the unherladed hero. I thinkhe could get on top of vickery and Moore has really started to establish himself as a top nocth hooker. The other worry is that the ref has been reading the papers and balmes all the scrum problems on the Wallabies or Baxter.
Looking forward to Wales V All Blacks.
Sluggy said | November 14th 2008 @ 9:36pm | Report comment
“The other worry is that the ref has been reading the papers and balmes all the scrum problems on the Wallabies or Baxter.”
The refs, or at least the NZ ones, seem to have got past the spin on this nowdays.