By Spiro Zavos
November 17th 2008 @ 5:30am
Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates..
---------------
Well, I’ll be scrummed, Baxter monsters Sheridan!
There are certain sentences a rugby writer believes he will never write, and one them was (notice the past tense): “Al Baxter monsters Andrew Sheridan, reducing him to a limping wreck wandering off Twickenham with all the dejection of a whipped schoolyard bully.”
But this is what happened on Saturday night when the Wallabies humbled and outplayed England by a convincing 28 to 14.
By my count there were 16 scrums in the Test. The first scrum went down twice before the Wallabies won a penalty. It was noticeable that Luke Burgess was feeding the ball as soon as the engagement was made, a sign that the Wallabies feared being driven off their ball if the scrum contest lasted more than a few seconds.
Then the Wallabies were penalised. This was interesting because this was the same pattern of scrum penalties that occurred at Marseilles in the 2007 RWC quarter final.
I was expecting, and no doubt the England pack, its supporters and the assembled rugby journalists were too, that the referee had twigged to Al Baxter and the scrum games were up for the Wallabies. And with the scrums going backwards, there was the virtual certainty that the Wallabies would be scrummed off the field.
But as the scrums continued it became obvious that a different script was being written. The Wallaby scrum was clearly dominant, even on its own ball when England could put on an 8-man shove. And then we had four memorable: ‘Well, I’ll be scrummed moments.’
First, just after half-time, with the Wallabies holding a precarious and slightly against the run-of-play 1-point lead, the Australian pack won a tight head.
Then in the 63rd minute of play the Wallabies smashed the England pack rather like a car being pulverised into a small square of metal.
With 13 minutes of play left, and the game still in the balance, Andrew Sheridan limped off the field. He was a broken and diminished figure and any claims he might have to be England’s iconic wrecking ball were now wrecked.
Finally, with minutes of play left and England 13 points down, they forced a short-arm penalty only a few metres from the Wallaby tryline. The much-feted great scrummagers, the masters of the destructive shove, the destroyers of airy-fairy southern hemisphere packs, opted to take a tap and run.
As the Bible might have said: ‘Those who live by the scrum will also perish by it.’
The knives are already being poised behind the massive back of Martin Johnson, the saviour-coach the UK rugby journalists demanded after the curiously successful 2007 RWC campaign. The argument is being made that the wrong forwards were selected. But when the other players were on the field the Wallaby pack became so dominant one thought that somehow the jerseys of the teams had been swapped.
What did stand out in England’s approach was that there did not seem to be a coherent game plan. What were England trying to do?
They had a very quick back three but the outside centre did not get the ball in a passing movement until the last quarter of the match. There didn’t seem to be a system to run the ball back from the inevitable kicks. The forwards had a primitive one-up barging game but where were the run-arounds? Where were the incursions from deep positions after a couple of phases?
We are beginning to see, I believe, the foolishness of English rugby, which has 500,000 players, allowing its premiership sides to be loaded with foreigners to make the clever plays, the breaks and the hard yards. What has happened in English soccer will probably happen to England rugby. The national side is being sacrificed in the name of club owners trying to establish the best club championship in the world.
How can a generation of good young players develop into Test players, as they do in Australia, NZ and South Africa, when access to first class rugby is blocked off for most of them when they are in their early 20s?
There needs to be more informed analysis about rugby, too, from officials, coaches, players and rugby journalists in the UK. My ancestors, the ancient Greeks, had a saying: ‘Whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first grant them their wishes.’
For over 100 years there has been a resistance in England to thinking deeply about rugby tactics, innovations, the laws and the organisation and practices of the game. It was typical of this attitude that when the IRB embarked on the most rigorously documented and thought-out revision of the laws of any major sports with its Experimental Law Variations project, the reaction from the English rugby establishment was to reject the idea of the ELVs on the spurious ground that the ARU (which did NOT even initiate the project) was trying to protect the Wallabies from their inability to scrum properly.
As a Roar blogger points out on another thread, the stupidity of this argument was revealed at Twickenham with the Wallabies scrumming England out of the Test. Moreover, any one who had even the slightest understanding of the ELVs would recognise that the change from long-arm penalties to short-arm penalties actually allows more opportunity for sides to have more scrums, if they want to.
The last England coach to actually think deeply about rugby tactics and strategy was Clive Woodward. Woodward was booted out of his job, after winning the 2004 RWC, by officials who are still in place. Under Woodward, particularly in 2003, England developed the kick-pass to ‘widen’ the field and a running, abrasive pack that fitted the traditional England approach of direct, confrontational rugby on attack and defence.
That 2003 side was probably England’s best-ever side. And the performance at Melbourne before the 2003 RWC against the Wallabies was one of the great displays any rugby side has put on. Instead of being given anything he wanted to continue the success, Frances Baron and the other nabobs of English rugby denied Woodward the training facilities and back-up he wanted to create an English hegemony.
Woodward told me that he learnt to think deeply about the art of coaching when he had a stint as a player at Manly in the era of Alan Jones.
Martin Johnson’s rugby improved significantly when he spent a year in NZ in the King Country, Colin Meads territory, and played for the Junior All Blacks.
My guess is that England, particularly, with its vast resources of players would be a perpetual top-three rugby nation if its rugby establishment had the nous to do what Woodward did at Manly to develop his coaching skills and what Johnston did as player to become one of rugby greatest ever second-rowers.
The bottom line on the Wallabies marvellous victory was that it was built on competitions at the provincial and international level between South Africa, NZ and Australia that continually test the physical and mental skills of the local players.
Would Matt Giteau have developed so quickly as an international star if he was blocked from playing Super 14 Rugby by an overseas player?
Al Baxter has had years of battling and being beaten by outstanding southern hemisphere props and their coaches forever trying to get an edge by developing a higher skill factor than the opposition to reach the stage where he can monster Andrew Sheridan.
With the stunning victory over England suddenly what looked like being a tour from hell for the Wallabies and Robbie Deans, with a run of hard matches against NZ, Italy, England, France, Wales and an All-Star Barbarians sides, now looks like it could result in a triumphant Grand Slam march through Europe, at least.
The Test against France next week will be interesting as France are the only unbeaten northern hemisphere team in the current round of international matches.
More importantly, there appears to be a great improvement in the French scrum from the past couple of years. More heroics might be needed from Baxter if this is the case.
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...
(42)
Reg said | November 17th 2008 @ 8:09am | Report comment
I don’t know if its because I am a former prop, but that was one of the most satisfying wins for a long long time. Probably since the MacQueen era.
In saying that, we have to show we can back up. France will be another test. Don’t think we have beaten them over there since George Smith’s first test in 2000!
Homer said | November 17th 2008 @ 8:24am | Report comment
I noted the usual suspect still managed to demean the wallaby forwards as being useless imitators on the world stage whil;e saying Ebgland succumed.
He also had the hide to say the first free kick against Sheridan was wrong and Baxter to blame. Baxter’s back is straight and flat and destroyed Sheridan in the contact so much that Sheridan had his head on his knees before hitting the dirt. The touch judge was four feet away and read it properly. Well done the officials for a change and for not being hoodwinked by the press.
Ian Noble said | November 17th 2008 @ 8:27am | Report comment
Spiro
Where is your cry for boring rugby, the W’s scored the majority of points with penalties and just one try. At least the English tried to play rugby. The tackle count by the W’s was three times that of England, an indication of England’s intent. Pity through inexperience they couldn’t convert the possession into points.
No problem with the Ws winning but lets have a little balance after you attacking England ,with Wilko kicking the points,for being boring yet doing exactly what the W’s did yesterday being efficient, disciplined and taking their chances. I was at Twickenham and it was a tense hard contest, very enjoyable and the 14 points difference was not a fair reflection of the game, but England will learn. I only hope Johnson is given time to build a squad over the next two/three years taping into the new English talent we see every week in the GP.
Howi said | November 17th 2008 @ 8:32am | Report comment
Like just about everybody, I was so impressed with our forwards - yes, the front three but also all over the park the pack got stuck in and never seemed to take a backward step, especially when the game was intense and at speed. But also our kicking was at last almost waterproof. It has to be said that winning teams these days must have great goal kickers. Giteau was superb, but let’s not overlook that fantastic kick Captain Mortlock nailed from about 45 metres to press an imposing lead at a very critical time. Sweetness was added to that conversion because it arrived after our scrum ran over the top of England.
Wallythefly said | November 17th 2008 @ 8:59am | Report comment
Reg, I agree, I was over the moon about the win, given all the crap baxter et al got it made it very sweet. Ian, I was watching it with my dad and we were joking about how funny it would be if we won the match through kicks and england scored a try and we didn’t (this is before AAC crossed over). Sure, you’d rather score more tries but you can’t deny the irony.
SouthernWaratah said | November 17th 2008 @ 9:16am | Report comment
Spiros you’ve been particularly hard on Al over the years, this whole event reminds me a little of Andrew Symonds at the cricket world cup when everyone was saying “why is here there”. Well Baxter hasn’t exactly scored a match saving hundred but did but the wind up the English front row. I love nothing more than when the British press propaganda about how crap the Aussies are. Its started already with the cricket. Atherton and Botham both making noises as if the Ashes are home and that Aussie cricket is at the end of a era… Bring on the Frogs I say!
Benny R said | November 17th 2008 @ 11:53am | Report comment
Ian
it was near impossible for the Wallabies to score a try! Everytime they were attacking within England’s 22 metre line the English stood offside and were happy to concede a penalty.
craig said | November 17th 2008 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
Ian,
Good point on the talent you see in the GP every week. It’s just a shame none of them are English………
Worlds Biggest said | November 17th 2008 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
a very gritty and determined effort from the Wallabies, all the more satisfying given we have a lot of improvemnt in us. Let’s not break out the Bubbly just yet. France and Wales await in what will be tough encounters in there respective cauldrons. Just on the fantastic Mortlock penalty, that looked eerily similar in position to the kick in Marseille Qtr Final which hooked.
mudskipper said | November 17th 2008 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
Baxter, Moore and Robinson leave Fleet Street cannibalising its own, brilliant…Let’s hope there is still some more vigour left in the tank for the French…
Furthermore, is it to early to speak of a possible Northern Hemisphere Grand Slam in 2008 under Robbie Deans? With Tuqiri, Palu and Kimlin coming back into play its all looking somewhat possible.
Homer said | November 17th 2008 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
Alexander and Dunning are likely to be thrown in against the French i believe as it is a lot to ask Baxter and Robinson to back up in a week from that tough game as well as the Welsh. It will be good to see how our depth stands up over the next few weeks. Shame we don’t have another hooker behind Moore (one who can throw i mean).
mudskipper said | November 17th 2008 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
The Wallabies need Moore to start against the French…
ulysses said | November 17th 2008 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
Homer - reckon the same front row will start against the French - with the second stringers used against Wales. The French are a better scrum than Wales I think. Agree with Mudskipper. Robinson and Baxter had the Italy game off don’t forget.
Homer said | November 17th 2008 @ 2:52pm | Report comment
It will be great to see kepu and Alexander together, and i don’t want to underestimate the Welsh side, they showed great glimpses against SA and then made 12 changes before struggling against Canada in some woeful canary outfit. Mind you, SA are an unknown at the moment.
Don’t forget the Barbarians team is sizing up to be awesome, with three current international captians in the forwards alone. Everyone will want to play in that one.
Homer said | November 17th 2008 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
What happens when Foley leaves the Wallaby setup? Is there another great forwards coach in the wings. When can some of the Warathas props get over to the Force? We’ll take the second stringers in Dunning and Kepu.
mudskipper said | November 17th 2008 @ 3:02pm | Report comment
Talking about Wales and their yellow strip….
I have a theory…Teams which play in an alternative strip but prefer their famous strip like Red for Wales or Black for NZ often play poorly when using the alternative jersey. Either they don’t emotionally identify with it or just aren’t use to seeing their fellow players on the field wearing it and it then effects their continuity and speed of process.
Example; The All Blacks lost their Semi final at the RWC in the grey strip.
mudskipper said | November 17th 2008 @ 3:07pm | Report comment
Homer….Jim Williams is a good forwards coach…The Tahs love to silo players…The Force need to get in early pick them up at Shute Shield level.
Homer said | November 17th 2008 @ 3:08pm | Report comment
Big Jim is not a scrum coach though, at least not a front row specialist which si what is needed.
mudskipper said | November 17th 2008 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
Big Jim knows how it’s done… Munster’s pack were doing well under him and picked up the Heineken Cup last year. Foleys been great but is replaceable. Foley stayed on because his contract ended after this tour and he was making in roads. They can only employ him during development camps or get Bill Young how is scrum specialist at the Brumbies this coming season.
B Johnson said | November 17th 2008 @ 6:48pm | Report comment
Where’s Benjamin ?
If he is out there he might know how serious Cipriani’s injury is and who will be in his place against the Boks if he is unable to play
Colin N said | November 17th 2008 @ 8:24pm | Report comment
One of the things that really annoys me on this board is when they criticise the GP without actually watching it.
Craig’s comment “Good point on the talent you see in the GP every week. It’s just a shame none of them are English” is nonsesne. There’s plenty of young English talent coming through.
Anyway, the Cipriani injury doesn’t seem too bad. I haven’t heard anything in the press so he should be fit for next week. Personally I think he should be given a run of games but some people want Flood in at 10 for the South Africa game, as to be fair, he has been excellent this season.
craig said | November 17th 2008 @ 9:04pm | Report comment
Colin, I do watch mate. I follow the Saints.
Cutter said | November 17th 2008 @ 9:24pm | Report comment
Spiro et al - its not a grand slam tour if we dont play all of the home nations. We arent playing Ireland.
Spiro Zavos said | November 17th 2008 @ 9:33pm | Report comment
Ian. The fact that Matt Giteau kicked all those penalties against England is a case of the RFU (the England rugby union) being hoist on its own petard. The RFU was behind the European push to play only some of the ELVs and not the parcel of variations that were played in the Super 14 and Tri Nations. In another thread I’ve quoted Mathew Alvarez, the ARU statistician, pointing out that under the full ELVs there were on average about 8 full-arm penalties a match and under the modified ELVs being used in Europe there have been about 19 a match.
Presumably under the ELVs used in the SH Giteau would have had fewer chances of kicking penalties. The SH ELVs allow for a full-arm penalty in three cases: offside, not entering a ruck/maul through the gate, and foul play. All other infringements (and those involving the scrum, except for offside) are short-arm.
The ELVs that are being played have had a positive impact on tactics and the outcome of the matches. The England pack, for instance, looked to be very tired from having to play more rugby (the ball in play longer) and were reluctant to move out of the 10m zone when kicks by their backs were launched downfield. Phil Vickery, rather ruefully, told the referee when he was penalised for staying put rather ruefully that he was ‘getting a bit old’ for all the chasing.
The kicking out sanction has had the effect too of forcing teams to play their way out of their own territory or kick the ball back to the opposition. Again, England seemed to be reluctant to keep the ball in hand and make the Wallabies work hard on defence. When England did try to attack it was mainly in one-off hit-ups. Although the Wallabies had to make more tackles than England, they were not lung-busting tackes.
The All Blacks were good too in exploiting the short lineouts and having Brad THorne running at O’Gara. The Irish five-eights looked off his game in the Test. But in mitigation, he’d been forced to make tackles on a charging Thorn, hardly a pleasant prospect, especially for O’Gara who is a noted weak defender.
This gets me back to one of my main points. The RFU was so determined to see the ELVs project as an ARU conspiracy that it has shot itself in the foot. Instead of getting a system that allows more scrumming than under present laws (presuming of course that England will remain a strong scrumming side) they got a truncated ELVs system that allowed for the usual number of full-arm penalties with no option to have more scrums than normal.
I can’t help thinking that there is not a great deal of real rugby nous in English rugby. If there was someone surely would have seen the advantages for the traditional England game the full ELVs offer. Or if they couldn’t work it out for themselves. they could have read what some SH rugby writers were saying rather than dismissing their analysis as SH nonsense.
JonnyP said | November 17th 2008 @ 9:47pm | Report comment
Spiro- did you find the game boring or not?
matta said | November 17th 2008 @ 10:10pm | Report comment
Andrew Sherridan has never been that good…at all hype.
I said after their NZ tour that his rep was gone after he was punished by Sommerville.
Ian Noble said | November 17th 2008 @ 10:47pm | Report comment
Spiro
As always an interesting response but there are some points which do need some clarification. Whilst the RFU as the largest and richest union seems to get in the neck from all and sundry about the ELV’s the most outspoken has the WRU and Serge Blanco of FFR. The RFU as I have pointed out before has supported some of the ELVs but not all. I would say that the worldwide trial of the 13 is going well and I suspect the majority will get the thumbs up for RWC2011.
The main problem is perception in that there have been mixed messages on the remainder, with O’Neill being the only person as far I am aware who has been so outspoken in support of the wider adoption of all the ELVs. It is unfortunate that he appears to be a lonely voice with SA indicating considerable reservations and NZ not sure what to say. It not surprising that to many peoples eyes it is seen as an OZ promotion. Perhaps as I have mentioned before if the adoption of the entire ELVs is so beneficial he should take a step back and persuade the CEO’s of SA and NZ to move into his position to do more promotion, but there seems to be a considerable reluctance to do that.
There is also the question of whether it has made the game more of spectacle as looking at the present series of tests in the NH the trialling of the 13 ELVs has been almost seamless and has produced in the main some very tense hard fought test match rugby. England, for example, were quite rightly punished and gave away kickable penalties for their ill discipline. The short arm alternative is not sufficient punishment, to my mind it lessens the offence and England deserved to lose another three points. England have to be more disciplined and it adds to the game as the Ws under Deans are well coached and don’t give away penalties in kickable positions. The Ws were also very clever at enticing England into giving away the penalties, I suppose it illustrates England’s inexperience and poor game awareness.
It also a low shot to say because others have reservations about the wider adoption of all the ELVs it shows a lack of rugby nous. The ELVs are what they are experimental and some will be adopted and some not, but there has to be consensus. By the way the RFU are still running their survey on the ELVs access through the RFU web site http://www.rfu.com
jools-usa said | November 18th 2008 @ 2:42am | Report comment
Spiro,
Early days yet & some areas NEED improvement, especially Burgess caught many times dithering or slow.
Glaring holes for Cipriani without Barnes in defense.
Someone needs to remind Cross that he’s playing Union and MUST pass to support.
Finally, please tell whomever it was that when you field a high kick on your 10 metre line with the white-clad
horde bearing down, you MUST kick for touch, not try & be a hero.
What WAS great was only muffing one catch at re-start, following up high kicks, and tackling England into
shock in last 20 minutes.
All in all a great win.
Jools-USA
Colin N said | November 18th 2008 @ 5:47am | Report comment
matta,
Ironically that hype of Sheridan originally came from the Southern Hemispher journalists and the NH ones seemed to jump on the bandwagon. When a SH team plays England, all the SH journalsits seem to talk about, is Sheridan. I think he’s overated but the Southern Hemisphere pundits seem to rate him, so I’m not complaining.
“Again, England seemed to be reluctant to keep the ball in hand and make the Wallabies work hard on defence.”
Spiro, I don’t quite know what you’re trying to say with this statement because England played the more expansive rugby and tried to keep the ball in hand. However, Australia did well in turning over the ball with regularity, so it was hard for England to keep the ball in hand, to some extent. I think Australia kicked the ball more often.
P.S. Whether you watch the GP or not Craig, it’s still a riduclous statement.
Brendan said | November 18th 2008 @ 6:01am | Report comment
Spiro
Great article as usual just wondering why we haven’t heard anything from Benjamin? Perhaps he doesn’t have anything to offer in response to your analysis.
Regards,
Brendan
mudskipper said | November 18th 2008 @ 8:07am | Report comment
So has the Southern Hemisphere ELVs strengthened the Wallabies scrum though the S14 a Tri-Nations? Perhaps so…
Also I’m not clear on want teams construed a grand Slam tour. Is it 4 Northern Hemisphere nations or England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland?
Its been a while since I’ve seen one…
Jerry said | November 18th 2008 @ 8:17am | Report comment
Mudskip - It depends on who’s playing.
For a SH union, a Grand Slam is beating Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. For a team involved in the 6 Nations (or the old 5 Nations) a Grand Slam is winning every game in the tournament.
So, while in years gone by England could win a Grand Slam by beating France, Ireland, Wales and Scotland, were New Zealand or Australia to beat the same four teams while on tour that would not be a Grand Slam.
mudskipper said | November 18th 2008 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Thanks Jerry…
Jerry said | November 18th 2008 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Forgot to add - a Grand Slam has to be on tour. The All Blacks beat Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England in the 1995 WC but that’s not included as a Grand Slam.
Spiro Zavos said | November 18th 2008 @ 8:31am | Report comment
Ian
Thanks for the perceptive comments you made on my comment. You have to understand that it was the RFU that said it would not accept the full ELVs under any circumstances and that it would tolerate some of the ELVs only if the main one, the penalty sanction was not put into the package. Then the argument was made by RFU and the British rugby establishment, including virtually all of the senior rugby writers and coaches, that the ELVs were really part of an ARU plot to depower Test rugby to protect the weak Wallaby scrum. The phony argument was made, too, that the ELVs took the ’structure’ out of the game.
None of this accorded to the reality of what was happening in the Super 14 or Tri-Nations.
The ’structure’ of the game in terms of fiercely contested scrums and lineouts was clearly obvious.
But the difference was that teams could not close down games as the Springboks did in the 2007 RWC final by passing the ball back into the 22 and belting it into touch on the halfway or further, denying the opposition the chance to put continual pressure on inside and just outside their 22.
Teams can still play effective defensive rugby as the Springboks did against Wales and Scotland, after getting points on the ball. But it is now easier for teams to play more expansively if they want to, as the All Blacks did against Ireland (I watched the game again on tape and was struck by how much ball movement there was from the All Blacks).
Finally, the history of trying to get the right laws for rugby has been a history of the RFU, particularly, opposing every innovation.
Take the sanction against kicking out after taking the ball into the 22. This was proposed by Australia and NZ back in the 1920s. In Australia it was played in local rugby throughout the 1920s under the name of ‘the Australian dispensation.’ It was played in Auckland too for a decade. Auckland and NSW were both under pressure from RL making great gains and the dispensation was seen as needed to make rugby a more athletic and expansive game.
Even now we are not sure if the RFU will support this obvious improvement to the game.
Homer said | November 18th 2008 @ 8:53am | Report comment
Side note: The English Rugby Chief has apologised for the crowd booing when Gits lined up his kicks saying it wasn’t the ethos of the game! Very nice of him, although I wonder how he would feel in Jo’burg or one of the more vocal South African grounds.
Colin N said | November 18th 2008 @ 10:07am | Report comment
Homer, I’m actually quite impressed that the English Rugby Chief has said what he said because you would never hear that from any of the other British Isle Chiefs (so to speak). In recent years all the home nations have booed opposition kickers with Ireland probably being the most respectful. It annoys me though because tickets for internationals are only given to clubs around the country and only then, if there are any left, will they go on general sale. Therefore you probably get a lot of idiots and arm chair fans.
Greg Russell said | November 18th 2008 @ 11:07am | Report comment
Re “Baxter monsters Sheridan”: Sean Fitzpatrick, who did BBC commentary on the match, was asked about this on RadioSport New Zealand. His interesting answer was that scrummaging has evolved a lot in recent years, with the hooker becoming increasingly important, and the contest is no longer a straight one of prop versus prop. Rather, Sheridan’s demise was the work of Moore and Baxter working well together.
Fitzpatrick also said that even before this match he was of the opinion that Stephen Moore is now the best hooker in the world, and that his performance at Twickenham had absolutely confirmed this in his eyes.
Fitzpatrick was emphasizing scrummaging in his comments. Not widely recognized is that Moore is also the straightest lineout thrower in world rugby, something that can be statistically proven. For example, he went through the entire 2007 World Cup without having one throw called crooked. Start paying attention to this, and you’ll notice that it’s a rare day that he does throw one crooked. This is not to say that he always gets the right length on his throws, but certainly getting them straight is a very valuable start.
And of course the guy is no mug around the paddock either.
If to win a World Cup you need 4 or 5 players who are the best in the world in their positions, then Moore gives Deans and the Wallabies a good start for 2011.
Homer said | November 18th 2008 @ 11:17am | Report comment
Great call by Fitz. Moore has excelled this year along with Robinson and Horwill. If Hugh Mcmeniman can stay injury free for a season or two then he could be up there with Rocky Elsom. So all things considered the forwards are looking a new outfit under Robbie, although 2011 is a long way away. The worry is the lack of back up for Moore. Frier, Mcaaisac, Huia Edmonds, Faainga, Holmes etc half are close to or past retirement date and the others are short of international grade. It is a worry that every S14 side is hanging on to ageing hookers and very few young dynamo’s seem to be coming through.
The young Sydney Uni hooker picked up by the Brumbies is still only 19 and therefor no chance for 2011 while TPN still hasn’t worked out his lineout throws and connot be a run on hooker until he does.
mudskipper said | November 18th 2008 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
So if its not a Grand Slam asthis is really a Northern Hemispherer term…We will have to find a name where a Southern Hemsphere team wins all its NH tour matches…Spiro this a job for you…We should have a name for this achievement…
Nick (KIA) said | November 18th 2008 @ 3:04pm | Report comment
A Grand Spam? A Grand Sham?
I think Fitz might be correct about Moore. Although A Hore might have something to say about that too.
Brendan said | November 19th 2008 @ 7:11am | Report comment
So would Bismark Du Plessis.
Can any aussies on this site please inform me why locks are referred to as “second rowers” while the lose trio is referred to as “backrowers” when these are quiet obviously rugby league expressions?
Thanks,
Brendan