By Spiro Zavos
June 29th 2009 @ 6:16am
Related coverage
Matt Giteau and the Wallabies are right on target
Australia's Matt Giteau slides in to gather up a loose ball during the Australia v France Rugby Union test at ANZ Stadium, Sydney, Saturday, June 27, 2009. (AAP Image/Dean Lewins)
The defining moment of the Australia (22) v France (6) Test at the ANZ Stadium came not long after half-time when France intercepted a pass deep inside their own territory (as they did to win the first Test against the All Blacks) and a certain try under the Wallaby posts was on.
The referee Dave Pearson, who missed knock-ons galore in the first half, immediately ruled an off-side. Matt Giteau kicked the penalty. Instead of the scoreline being 10 – 10, it had now stretched out for the Wallabies to 13 – 3.
Three more penalties to Giteau in quick succession, all in relatively easy positions, and the Wallabies and Giteau were up to 22 points for the match.
There was no way a French side that notably tired towards the end of the match (a consequence no doubt of their tough two Tests in New Zealand) was going to come back from this position.
To their credit, though, and a testimony to the fact that this is a very good French squad, they fought on, did not concede any more points in the last quarter of the match and came very close to scoring themselves.
Pearson’s decision was effectively a 10-point turnaround.
It seemed to me watching the replay that Luke Burgess had his hands on the ball before the French player made his run into the Wallaby line. Burgess’s rather laboured, harbour-bridge pass allowed an easy run on to the ball for the interception.
With the scoreline at 10 – 10 France would probably have lifted from their tiredness to run hard at the Wallabies and drive harder into the rucks and mauls. And if this had happened, who knows what the final result might have been.
Even with all the ensuing penalties, the scoreline would have been Australia 19 – France 13 for the last quarter of the match. France would at least have been within a converted try to win the Test.
This is, of course, all speculation.
The Wallaby defence was tremendous throughout the match. Early on a charge down allowed France to flood the Wallaby line. But somehow the scrambled defensive line held.
And in the second half, there were times when France threatened only to be cut down by a defence that would not give up a try.
Outstanding for the Wallabies was George Smith. He made tackles, one of them quite late for which he was penalised, and snaffled the ball in his hits time and time again.
Robbie Deans, who knows something about how good a loose forward can be through coaching Richie McCaw, called Smith a ‘one-man band’ at the breakdown.
He is a freakishly good player who is carrying the Wallabies at the break-down. He doesn’t seem to get injured and while this is so the Wallabies have one of the best, if not the best ‘fetcher’ in world rugby.
The Wallaby set pieces, especially the lineout, looked strong. The scrum is definitely better than last year, although occasionally it buckles. It does put more pressure than in the past on the opposing scrum now, though.
The back three are developing Deans’ Crusader game of running the ball back from kicks, where possible, with some profit. It is this pace and work rate of the back three, and their general accuracy in the lines they run, that is rightly keeping Lote Tuqiri out of the team.
Where Tuqiri often complained about not getting the ball, and leaving his wing (something Deans does not like) to look for work, the current back three are getting many touches – and, more importantly, doing something creative with the ball on many occasions.
The other great improvement is the developing combination of the five-eighths, Giteau and Berrick Barnes.
Deans has always preferred the traditional New Zealand system of two five-eights rather than the Australian system of two centres. The two five-eights, as they showed in the first and only try of the Test, offer running, passing and kicking options that are difficult for defences to contain.
So the Wallabies have had four matches in their 2009 campaign. The Barbarians match was a romp that didn’t tell us a great deal, other than that James O’Connor is a terrific talent.
The two Tests against the Italians (who gave the All Blacks a very hard match winning the possession and position statistics and keeping the home side to only 3 tries) showed that the pack was at least competitive and that the back three has the speed and systems to challenge staunch defensive lines.
The Test against a strong French side showed that the pack can stand up to brutes. There is a growing fluency about the play of the Wallabies which was not reflected in the try statistics.
Overall, one can say that Matt Giteau (with his aspirations to be the leading five-eighths in world rugby) and the Wallabies (with their eyes on the Tri-Nations and the Bledisloe Cup) are right on target.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(52)
Benny said | June 29th 2009 @ 7:20am | Report comment
Sprio,
Did Burgess run over your dog or something? you always seem to be super critical of him yet i can guarantee you will not make a single mention of giteau’s general play kicking game being rubbish (and he threw half a dozen poor passes), nor will you make any mention of the fact that a few of our forwards prefer to hang out in the backline than do the tough stuff in the rucks…
focus your criticism on the whole team matey
Jerry said | June 29th 2009 @ 7:47am | Report comment
Quick correction – “the Italians (who gave the All Blacks a very hard match winning the possession and position statistics”
The Italians won the territory stat, but were behind in terms of possession.
Sambobly said | June 29th 2009 @ 8:31am | Report comment
Luke Burgess may have had his hands on the ball for a long time, but the French player never retired behind the last feet. Hence, regardless of whether he started running before or after the ball was out is meaningless because he began the play in an offside position.
Tony from Northbridge said | June 29th 2009 @ 8:57am | Report comment
Pearson got the call from his assistant on the sideline re the offside. Sambobly is 100% correct to say that the French player was never on-side. The other point is that hands on the ball is no longer the test of when the ball is out – it has to be clear of the bodies. The French 12 was a serial offender – he gave away the offside penalty in the first half that Giteau kicked, and from memory there was another penalty he conceded in the 2nd half that cost his team 3 points.
CronullaKiwi said | June 29th 2009 @ 9:05am | Report comment
Great performance from the wallabies but the result hardly surprising. Disgraceful performance from the AB’s they are calling it the worst in the last 10 years.
BennO said | June 29th 2009 @ 10:01am | Report comment
I wasn’t all that impressed with the wallabies and thought that if the ref had not been so one eyed in our favour, it would have been a very different result. No doubt the All Blacks will lift for the Tri Nations, I just hope we can too.
I’m really impressed with Ashley-Cooper though, despite a missed bomb on the weekend. O’Connor can sure score tries but Ashley-Cooper is a test full back in my opinion. For now O’Connor is best suited to a bench utility role like Mat Rogers used to (begrudgingly) fill.
Even looser said | June 29th 2009 @ 10:31am | Report comment
Maybe it was the alcohol but I’m almost certain that the Channel 7 kept on showing a replay of a Frenchy going out yet keeping the ball in play, only to have the lineout to Australia.
I agree we were lucky with one of two decisions but that’s footy. Overall I thought we stepped-up a notch. My greatest concern, given the preparation that Sth Africa have had, is how does Robbie and the boys lift their intensity with 3 weeks off?
SouthernWaratah said | June 29th 2009 @ 10:32am | Report comment
There’s something about this squad that reminds me off the 1997 – 1999 version. I’m very much looking forward to the next 2 years…
Hoy said | June 29th 2009 @ 10:37am | Report comment
I think a lot of refs these days are playing that the hands on doesn’t matter, that is not ball out, and players must stay at last feet until he is in the act of passing at least.
Hoy said | June 29th 2009 @ 10:37am | Report comment
Just something I have noticed anyway.
sheek said | June 29th 2009 @ 11:49am | Report comment
Thought it was a good test match. The acid days are around the corner, but this Wallaby side is evolving nicely. Our scrum has improved immensely, & is adequate. But it can still go up a few notches.
The defence is awesome, & the backs are nicely building combinations. There are plenty of game breakers, which is handy. Yeah, I’m looking forward to the next few years myself.
ironpaw said | June 29th 2009 @ 11:59am | Report comment
The wallabies are looking fantastic. The only worry is depth and a couple of injuries changes everything.
What would the team be like without Giteau or Smith? Are there credible replacements?
Brett McKay said | June 29th 2009 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
Couldn’t agree more Sheek, things are bubbling along nicely…
Ben C said | June 29th 2009 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
We all know the Wallabies must be improving if they have prompted such optimisim from Sheek.
I would have been happier if, like thr All Blacks of 05 to 07, we had the mental discipline to keep our foot on the throat of any opposition, no matter how strong or how weak. I got the impression that (some of) the players weren’t at 100% and were saving themselves for the TN.
A few thoughts:
We desparately need a back-up/replacement tight-head as Alexander is struggling in that position. I am not convinced he is the long term answer as his scrumagging, even at loose-head is nowhere near as good as Robinson. Dunning and Shepherdson have been tried and aren’t the answer. Kepu was retraining for tighthead but seems to have fallen off the radar following his severe injury. Has Rodzilla learnt to scrummage and is he going to come back?
Sharpe had a good game and the challenge will be for him to keep it up and not slip back into old habits.
Mumm did some work at the breakdown but little else. He seems to be stuck between a lock (Waratahs) and flanker (Wallabies). Kimlin may be worth a try but I am increasingly unconvinced about the interchangeability of lock and flanker (except as cover for both on the reserve bench). We need to pick a specialist blindside flanker (Elsom, Hodgson, Mowen, Higginbottom) and stick with that rather than straddle the fence.
Brown is busy in defence and the breakdown but doesn’t offer much attcking thrust (a size issue?). Palu is busy on defence and an occasional big-hitter, offers less at the breakdown but far more in attack weighed against a tendency to become invisible for stretches. Palu needs to become more Toutai Kefu and less Reuben Thorne.
I would love to try a few matches with Barnes at 10 and Giteau at 12.
Who is going to replace Mortlock in the near future? Cross is too old, Horne too raw, Ioane is really a winger and Ashley-Cooper seems to play better at 15 then 13. Mortlock is our best 13 but I doubt whether he will last until the RWC11.
Once again I went to ANZ Stadium and regretted it. You would be hard-pressed to find a more soulless venue for any football match unless it is absoluely full. The catering was also worse than the SFS, which is really saying something as anyone who attended a Tahs match this year will know.
Peter K said | June 29th 2009 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
Ben C – I agree with all your thoughts except on Mortlock. I do believe Deans can nurse him through to the RWC11. He is our only big guy that gets over the advantage line in the backline. The closest we have in that mold to replace him would be either Tuqiri or Tahu and I do not think the former can convert quick enough and Tahu is too injury prone to rely on, worse than Mat Rogers and that is saying something.
If we had to replace Mortlock it would be AAC to 13 and JoC to 15.
Sam Taulelei said | June 29th 2009 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
The Wallaibies are building in confidence with every match, they know they have a few things to work on in preparation for their opener at Eden Park but they also know they have a good foundation to build upon. In Giteau they have the best no.10 in the world and he has been instrumental in the teams fortunes not only with his general play but also the improvement in his tactical kicking and goalkicking. Barnes complements Giteau’s game and together they remind me of the Carter and Mauger combination. There is a lot to be enthused about this side if you’re a Wallaby supporter and something to admire and respect if you’re not.
Conversely the All Blacks are showing signs of a team down on confidence. While there have been disruptions with injuries there hasn’t been any solid form as a team that they can build upon. There have been improvments within individual areas most notably at the lineout and restarts with Isaac Ross continuing form and development. The scrum is gaining parity but the Wallabies won’t have anything to fear at this setpiece and should gain asendancy. Loose forwards will be strengthened with the return of McCaw and So’oialo however Read has done nothing wrong. However it’s from no.9 and beyond that the problems are most visible, there is little rhythm or timing in passes, angles and lines of running. While the Wallabies have Giteau and Barnes to guide their backline, NZ is really struggling with either McAlister or Donald in the hot seat. They’re also struggling to control the ball kicked into the air and that’s a weakness I’m sure the Wallabies will be looking to exploit.
bennalong said | June 29th 2009 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
Ben C
Mumm was given the role of runner because of his speed. He ran for the kick-offs and the high balls and , unless you get there with the ball, its a low percentage job. He did his job and put in tackling and at the b’down
Blindside is Rocky’s position (when is he back for —– sake?) and I’d see Higginbotham as understudy, but not yet. Ben Mowen is in there too but hasn’t got the red hair.
I think Stirling is eyeing the World cup and certainly he offers a commanding presence. See him up close – he’s a massive unit and an inspirational captain. He’ll be there for a while I’d say. Tahu’s in the squad. When he was outside Barnes he certainly looked the goods. Cross and Tahu are not really too old and I don’t give a fig for the World Cup. It shouldn’t influence your personnel decisions.
I’m hoping Lote gets a chance to reinvent himself but having said that Drew Michell did what Deans demanded of him and would keep his spot.
I favour Barnes at 10 but Deans likes Giteau there so I don’t expect change.
Besides, things are good and getting gooder.
Justin said | June 29th 2009 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
Mumms done nothing to justify his place in the team IMO. Casper is rarely sighted, makes few tackles, seems to watch too much, he looks a rabbit in headlights to me. Fark all carries with the ball or support in the open field.
I think Kimlin deserves a shot if Rocky isnt fit. Higginbutt is good going forward but has some lapses in defence which are costly.
AndyS said | June 29th 2009 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
Yes, well, that is the warm-ups and easy bit over. Now it gets interesting – can’t wait.
Worlds Biggest said | June 29th 2009 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
surprised no one has brought up the poor crowd figure. The ARU continue to be invisible when promoting there events and just hope the faithful will turn up. This game warranted 55,000 + and would have achieved it if they got off there @rse and did something about it. Until the ARU become proactive and get serious about competing with other codes, Rugby will remain a niche market sport in this country.
Amateur Hour said | June 29th 2009 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
ANZ stadium should be renamed Moon Stadium…no atmosphere.
Unjust criticism of Mumm. Not being seen around the field used to be a compliment, however, I think that assessment is a little inaccurate anyway. Re-watch the two Tests against Italy. Especially the second one, where he played impressively at lock, which everyone knows is not his preferred postion.
fox said | June 29th 2009 @ 2:36pm | Report comment
“Once again I went to ANZ Stadium and regretted it. You would be hard-pressed to find a more soulless venue for any football match unless it is absoluely full.” – Ben C
Hear hear! I haven’t been since that woeful match against the saffas a few years back. I don’t like throwing around absolutes, but there is a chance I will NEVER go to ANZ again! In fact, I am going to Auckland for the Bledisloe this year instead. It will be worth the extra expense.
Bring REAL test matches back where they belong – to the SFS (yes, it’s still the SFS to me). John O’neill should stop pretending that he wants it to work by putting mikey mouse matches on there and suggesting less-than-full crowds mean there is no future in internationals at the SFS.
Ben C said | June 29th 2009 @ 2:50pm | Report comment
Peter K and bennalong
I agree Mortlock is still the form centre and he still crashs through the line on occasion but I think his commanding runs are becoming less and less frequent. Further, he seems to be injured more often, such as when he knocked himself out putting the hit on Woodcock. I vaguely recall he has taken a few significant injuries over the 08 S14, 08 Test and 09 S14 campaigns. Given his high impact playing styke, I wonder whether the years are starting to catch him up. If so, who will replace him as no one else offers the same thrust in the midfield.
I appreciate that you play the match in front of your, not for the RWC but lets not kid ourselves. Everything seems to happen with an eye to the next RWC. Deans is contracted until the end of the RWC campaign. It has to loom in your thinking. I am not saying we need to immediately start picking the team we will use for the RWC but you have to think long terms about renewal and replacement, in case of injuries, for the RWC and just generally for growth. My concern is that 3 and 13 seem to be areas where the Wallabies lack a long term prospect, not that Baxter and Mortlock should be given the gold watch right now.
SouthernWaratah said | June 29th 2009 @ 3:27pm | Report comment
Ben C
Who’s the ‘Kiwi/Aussie” prop who has just signed for the Force? I dare say he’ll come into contention. From all accounts the super coach was drooling over Rodzilla during last years Barbarians game, I dare say Dingo only has to say the word and O’Neil will get his check book out…
Tahu is still a chance for me to come good I agree with bennalong, the moment he was outside a decent No.12 Tahu started reeking havoc.
Tarpo said | June 29th 2009 @ 3:33pm | Report comment
Maybe Robbie is transforming Mumm into a Reuben Thorne? Thorne was often “invisible” & yet if you actually watched his every move he got through a mountain of work.
A lot of wringing of hands about TH prospects, firstly Baxter will still be under 35 at the RWC & for prop that is fine,eg Os Durant, Jason Lenard were older when they won their WC medals (Os his 2nd at least).
Sheperdson has shown some form this year & is starting to mature
Dunning was coming along at TH when injured & clearly has the intention of revisiting a spot in the Wallas.
Tim Fairbrother has signed with the Force with the view of cracking international honours, whilst not quite as mobile as Robbie likes his props he is a strong & experienced scrummager.
Rodney Blake is in France at “finishing school” & has learnt to play both sides of the scrum, surely he will be target for the 5th S15 team.
Young blokes learning their craft & showing some promise, Laurie Weeks, Dan Palmer, Kepu amongst others, better shape than we have been in for years!
Cover for Stirlo is a bit harder but AAC & Diggers are pretty handy & Cross is doing the job.
Robbie is building up the stocks there as well
SouthernWaratah said | June 29th 2009 @ 3:34pm | Report comment
…make that “cheque” book… I hate Mondays!
Peter K said | June 29th 2009 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
Ben C – OK I got the impression you wanted Mortlock out now because you know he will not make it to RWC. I think he will, however there is some risk and we need cover for him.
I would make sure ACC gets more time at 13 AND Tahu gets developed for 13.
SouthernWaratah said | June 29th 2009 @ 4:02pm | Report comment
Gasnier hasn’t been mentioned for 13?!?
Justin said | June 29th 2009 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
Not that stats are everything but this site seems quite comprehensive – http://www.rugbystats.com.au/rugby/
Click on the test you want and then you can check out players in a range of stats. Has a summary for each teams players and you can go into each stat category to dig a little deeper.
Peter K said | June 29th 2009 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
Souther Waratah – That must be a satirical question. League players have generally not been worth the exorbitant amount paid. Also it takes them 2+ years to be up to speed, and then another in Wallabies environment. No time for Gasnier or SBW.
retired rucker said | June 29th 2009 @ 4:39pm | Report comment
I read some where there is some massive young Fijian(Lotes cousin?)playing for randwick,
Is it time for Deans to ask for him to play 13 and develop into the next Stirling instead of wasting him on the wing?
I still reckon Mortlock will be there RWC as he is the heart and soul of the team at the moment. He still demands respect and attention from the oppo. He always drags 2-3 defenders.
Peter K said | June 29th 2009 @ 8:15pm | Report comment
retired rucker – Hickey was too stupid to use him last year after contracting him. He has no idea re backline play.
They also have the cousin earmarked for the wing which is a poor decision. He is too slow for wing at S14 level, and like you suggested far better for 13, maybe even better to play 6 or 8.
Peter K said | June 29th 2009 @ 8:19pm | Report comment
retired rucker – Yes ratanga or something. He is contracted to the Waratahs and Hickey was too stupid to use him.
He is earmarked for the wing. However he is too slow for wing at that level so 13 as you suggest would be far better. Or even 6 or 8. Hickey has no idea about backline play.
Working Class Rugger said | June 29th 2009 @ 8:45pm | Report comment
Peter K
Ratu Nasiganyavi. I’d like to see him get a run in the centre at 6′5′ and 125kg he’d make an impact.
ThelmaWrites said | June 29th 2009 @ 9:49pm | Report comment
Gentlemen, let’s not get too smug. This French team did not play to the same level as they’d played in NZ, as Jools-USA noted in another thread. They were either very tired from the NZ segment, or had already gotten the scalp they prized, or both. As Spiro has noted, they really showed fatigue in the second half: a lot of Gallic shrugs and a really slow walk to the line outs.
I was disappointed, as I’d hope they’d subject the Wallabies to the same intensity they’d given the All Blacks. The 3 Nations is just around the corner.
What I consider very positive is the way that the Wallas are beginning to play on the same WAVE LENGTH. They’re not really playing “what’s in front of you” (can someone please think up a better term, it’s getting trite from over-use), individually that is. Instead, one or a few make that judgment, but the whole pack sniffs it in the air, and they hunt as one. Remarkable. As Berrick Barnes said in the SMH today, there were some players who were skeptical at first, but not any more. I too was skeptical. I just hope my new appreciation is well-founded.
ThelmaWrites said | June 29th 2009 @ 9:57pm | Report comment
Oops, that should be “sceptical”. I wonder why the Spell Checker didn’t pick it up.
Peter K said | June 29th 2009 @ 10:16pm | Report comment
Thelma – I agree. We are showing a bit of hubris. The real test will be the boks and the AB’s.
Especially the away games.
I do not get this ‘play whats in front of you’in terms of defense. They must have patterns to cover the inside pass, the angle run, the ball passed wide. So what it must be is they have the ideal response to certain situations and then when the situation occurs everyone goes where they should. This is different to being programmed since that is a set of responses more than 1 set of steps ahead.
bennalong said | June 29th 2009 @ 11:13pm | Report comment
Peter K.
They have patterns but they’re expected to shelve them if they don’t adequately address what’s in front.
In Deans’ scheme you move out, ie. tackle the guy one out from the guy in front and opposite. But if the guy in front is ‘right in front’, you take him, and your guy inside will either help you put him down or loop around to cover the off-load.
For good players it’s generally what’s intuitively best instead of the book of rules.
The Deans method contracts the defensive line inward which, among other advantages, allows a quicker counter-attack
See what I came up wth, thinking about this as a simplicity, on a paralell thread.
Sam Taulelei said | June 29th 2009 @ 11:20pm | Report comment
Huh, can you try and explain this again Bennalong. Your first line is standard drift defence and then calls for a shift to man on man when the ball carrier is directly in front of you with support from your teammate pushing up from your inside shoulder to cover the offload or wrap the ball up. I’m still waiting for the part that is different with this system to the previous one or any other defensive systems practiced by opposition teams.
ThelmaWrites said | June 29th 2009 @ 11:39pm | Report comment
Peter K
Aha! So that’s how it works, I mean, your take on how it should work. I’ve been struggling for a year now with this subject, The New Look.
I gave my daughter, DaniE who posts here occasionally, Matt Burke’s autobiography, “A Rugby Life” for her birthday. On pages 50 and 51, he describes how difficult it was to adjust to Greg Smith’s “sequence of plays”. (The book is in KL with DaniE and I’m relying on my notes; some of the words are in shorthand.)..”A scrum here, work to a point here, after putting on a move….” xxx “That was a pretty regimented approach, and a lot of people in the game had problems with it – in line with the traditional belief that the way to play rugby was to let it flow, to PLAY WHAT’S IN FRONT OF YOU (my caps)…” xxx sequence 1, sequence 2, etc. Two years later it became the norm in rugby – but I think that with NSW in particular, Greg Smith hammered a good thing too much, too early.”
To get a handle about what you said, I relate it somewhat to American gridiron, where a particular coach might dictate the first 5 plays, and then the quarterback makes the rest of the calls, except when the coach sends specific instructions again. (Of course, this is for the offence, but the defense would have their plays too.) That helps me understand the drills.
I’m grateful. I’ll certainly think about your reply.
ThelmaWrites said | June 29th 2009 @ 11:43pm | Report comment
Oops, while I was composing my reply, Bennalong and Sam Taulelei had meantime posted ahead. Now I have more things to think about. I hope I can sleep. Gentlemen, it’s midnight!
Tumekeheke said | June 30th 2009 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
Australia are looking the goods, but I don’t think everybody should be counting the AB’s out yet, I mean they are missing at least 5 frontline players, with at least 2 of them being arguably the best in their respective positions (Mcaw, Carter). How would the Wallabies cope if Giteau, Mortlock, Smith and another couple of forwards were missing…. probably fairly similar to New Zealand at the moment.
mIckeym said | June 30th 2009 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
Back to the Frenchie being offside or not…
Now, my limited experience only goes as far as coaching/refereeing U8’s, but we have been lucky enough over the past 4 months to have had the ARU run coaches/referees sessions for the club each month, concentrating on Mini’s. One of the things the ARU boys covered early on was ruck and maul – laws and the practicalities of teaching 7 year olds what they should be doing.
Their explanation of when a ruck ends was “when the ball leaves the ruck”.
“How do we know when a ball has left the ruck?” we asked. “Is it when a player puts their hands on the ball ready to pass?”
“It only leaves the ruck when a bird can shit on it.” was their reply. “As long as the ball is on the ground, it is still in the ruck, even if the halfback has his hands on it. It is only out when it comes off the ground, or out past the hindmost foot of the hindmost player in the ruck (in other words when a bird can see it to shit on it).”
Based on that – I reckon he was indeed offside.
Stash said | June 30th 2009 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
That was not the same French team that played against the ABs – so the high-fives seem premature.
Saying that Smith was excellent – yet he seemed forever to be by himself, where was his support and shouldn’t that lead to more go-forward against a tired team?
Deans experimental team of youngsters (2nd test Italy) showed that some of the emerging talent have real potential (and some do not). This looked decidedly like Henry’s AB teams of rotational players. You would have to say that we all learned that it is more important to cover the top talent than merely having a second team. Tumekeheke is quite right – more concern should be given to covering key players. New Zealand has shown what can happen to a team’s momentum, confidence and ability without these key players.
Stash said | June 30th 2009 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
Giteau looks like he’s made of rubber! But then so did Dan Carter…
And surely Mortlock is held together by cellotape, a piece of string and superglue… (he just keeps going like an energiser battery)
retired rucker said | June 30th 2009 @ 3:26pm | Report comment
Seems to be alot of our NZ bretheren of the opinion that we ausys reckon weve got the AB’s stiched up. What would give them that impression? I think there’s a bit of mistaken reading between the lines.
My comments have been along the lines of their(wallas) are looking competive and I’m looking forward to the TN’s. Go you good things.
By the way my Kiwi mates aren’t giving me any ods anymore and some of them are flat out refusung to have a friendly punt with me.
May I start reading between the lines?????
Stash said | June 30th 2009 @ 4:09pm | Report comment
Rucker – with regards to the Tri-Nations, I believe that the Kiwis are more concerned about the current All Black’s form than any perceived ascension of the Wallabies. Normally, I would suggest that 3 weeks between games is a bad thing, perhaps not so for NZ this year…ha and they will be better off with some of their key player returning back from injury.
It doesn’t seem that long ago that the ABs were written off (2008) and they won TN, Bledsloie and a Grand Slam – the ABs surely have enough history on their side for the Wallabies and the Boks to be cautious (the Boks were very gloriously vocal last year after their win in Dunedin – and we all know that ended in the wooden spin for them).
But saying all that – the Wallabies do look to be improving (but perhaps they needed too) – it should be a cracker TN.
AndyS said | June 30th 2009 @ 4:16pm | Report comment
As my Kiwi mate once so eloquently put it (I won’t mention before which game), form is largely irrelevant come trans-Tasman time. Two teams will run out, and then God knows…
Darryl said | June 30th 2009 @ 8:46pm | Report comment
As a Wallaby supporter, what concerns me is the AB’s are usually on fire about this time in between world cups. Have they finally worked out how to peak at the right time?
Also, I’m expecting the Wallabies to bring out a few set moves from controlled rucks and set pieces in the TN’s – I reckon they’ve kept a few up their sleeves during the warm ups.
Oh and Spiro can you please stop making up ridiculous reasons why the Wallabies were lucky to win just to satisfy your fragile kiwi ego, and can you also please stop using the word “ensemble” or atleast use something different. Try a thesaurus.
Knives Out said | July 1st 2009 @ 4:43am | Report comment
-
Greg Russell said | July 2nd 2009 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
Sky NZ’s Reunion (TV) show analyzed the Traille off-side decision closely (on Tuesday night). It was agreed that he probably was just on-side, but that he was made to look off-side because the defenders around him were about a metre further back, rather than everyone being right on the off-side line together.
Dave Rennie (Manawatu, NZ U20 and ex-Wellington coach) said that as a coach he would expect this to be called off-side, because that’s what happens when one person in the defensive line is ahead of the rest. So in a sense Rennie was excusing referee Pearson, and instead was blaming this decision on Traille’s teammates for being lazy in not improving their defensive position right up to the allowable limit.
Rennie has a point. Referees have so much to do that it’s hard to expect them to constantly be looking at where the hindmost feet in a ruck are. Rather, they just quickly look at whether everyone is in a defensive line, and then get back to the myriad other things they have to be looking out for.
The other thing is the time it took between the ball emerging (when the defensive line is allowed to break) and Burgess passing it. Those with good medium-term memories may recall an incident in this year’s S14, where Lachlan Turner intercepted a pass from Blues halfback Taniela Moa just before half-time (at Eden Park). Turner too was actually on-side, but as with Traille-Burgess, he was made to look off-side by the slowness of Moa’s pickup and pass. NSW went on to win that game, but the denial of Turner’s legitimate try cost NSW a 4-try bonus point.
Now that I think about it, NSW missed the S14 semis by 1 point …
Justin said | July 2nd 2009 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
Greg – Interesting point. I would like to know what role the assistant referees are given regarding offside. With all refs miked up surely it is or should be the responsibility of the ARs to determine off-side, much like in soccer.
As I say I am not sure if it already happens, but if not then why not? They are in the perfect position to do it and have little else to worry about for the most part. They are the logical guardians of off-side IMO.