The Wallabies came, scored and were conquered
By Spiro Zavos, 20 Jul 2009 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- All Blacks, Berrick Barnes, Bledisloe Cup, George Smith, Richie McCaw, robbie deans, Rugby Union, Tri Nations, wallabies
227 Have your say
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Wallabies news
- Tri Nations Tournament news
- New Zealand All Blacks news
- Wallabies v All Blacks news

New Zealand's Piri Weepu looks to offload the ball under pressure from Australia's Benn Robinson (left) and Stephen Moore in the first Tri-Nations rugby test of the year, Eden Park, Auckland, New Zealand, Saturday, July 18, 2009. (AAP Image/NZPA, Ben Campbell)
From hero to villians is the story line for Berrick Barnes and the Wallabies after throwing away their chances of winning the first Bledisloe Cup Test for 2009.
I sometimes think that the All Blacks concentrate so hard on doing a ‘good’ haka that they take some time to get into the actual game. Whatever the reason, they started very slowly and in a mistake-ridden way for the first 20 minutes of the Test.
The Wallabies converted one mistake into a try to Barnes who sold a couple of dummies that were so obvious David Jones would have been proud to show them off in their front windows. Then Giteau kicked a penalty from another mistake.
And then when Stephen Donald had a chip kick charged down, Giteau rather brilliantly grabbed the ball, rolled and popped up a pass. The ball went out to Barnes. He had Stirling Mortlock steaming up on the inside for an easy run-in under the posts. Barnes sold another dummy which was not purchased this time. The ball popped forward off the head of George Smith and a 17 – 3 lead was blown.
Given all the talk about the poor play of the All Blacks in the early-season Tests and the intense pressure they were under to come good, there was no way back for them at 17 – 3. But by half-time they had clawed their way back to 13 – 10 down which was a winnable position given the fact they were going to play with a strong wind in the second half.
And so it turned out. A converted penalty to the All Blacks immediately after half-time and they were never behind again. Although there were only 6 points in it at the end, the All Blacks were well on top basically from the 20th minute onwards.
What changed things?
Essentially the All Blacks got their mauling and counter-rucking game into play, finally.
They put numbers of players into the rucks and mauls and got faster ball on their ball and managed to slow down virtually every Wallaby ruck and maul.
The statistics don’t, in fact, show this.
The All Blacks set up 65 rucks to 52 by the Wallabies. They lost 17 turnovers to 15 by the Wallabies, including 5 rucks/mauls to 6. The All Blacks also made 8 errors to the Wallabies 4 and missed 12 tackles to only 7. They also lost 3 lineouts to the Wallabies none.
So much for the statistics. In fact from the 20th minute on, the All Blacks smashed the Wallabies in the rucks. It was total dominance and as the game went on the dominance increased.
Robbie Deans is going to have to get the Wallabies to commit more players to the rucks and mauls. But this in turn will expose his backs, especially Giteau and Barnes to more one-on-one tackling. They are expert and brave tacklers. But they get knocked around trying to stop the big players charging at them, and this is what happened in the Test with Barnes getting injured after a Ma’a Nonu blockbuster and Giteau retreating further back into the pocket.
Four players had shockers: Al Baxter, Nathan Sharpe, Wycliff Palu, Luke Burgess.
Phil Kearns and Greg Martin can go on and on with their commentary about how hard done by Baxter was BUT: one, Benn Robinson does not go down at scrum time: two, Baxter goes down several times a game.
Nathan Sharpe was dropped last year but came back into the team when Daniel Vickerman went to Cambridge University. Vickerman is supposed to be coming back next year. But Deans might have to find a replacement for Sharpe before then.
With Burgess, Deans said he’d give him 18 months when he was first selected. The 18 months are almost up and it’s time for the Wallabies to move on to Josh Holmes and Will Genia, with Burgess kept on as insurance if they don’t rise to the levels expected of them.
Palu will surely be dropped when Rocky Elsom comes back.
The Wallabies need a big ball-running player in their back three. Palu has threatened to be this player for some time. But now plays so fitfully his presence basically adds nothing to the pack in big games.
Greg Russell in a comment on one of the threads made the point that Richie McCaw makes an impact no matter who the opposition is but George Smith is brilliant against everyone but the All Blacks. He wanted to know what their relative statistics were in matches against each other.
Smith has won only one Test in New Zealand out of 10 played. And out of New Zealand, Smith has won 6 against the All Blacks (including the 2003 World Cup semi-final and 2008 Sydney Test where he captained the Wallabies to a 34 -19 victory) and has lost 5 Tests.
McCaw has lost only one Test in New Zealand so far in his career, in 2003 against England. In Bledisloe Cup matches he has won 14 out of 16, with the two losses being in Australia.
I think the statistics suggest that McCaw is more influential for his team than Smith is, great player though he is. Smith is probably the best Wallaby openside flanker of all time (fans of Col Windon will argue about this until the cows come home).
McCaw brings a bigger bulk and more dynamic running to his play than Smith does.
The problem for Deans now is whether to start making some fundamental changes to his side now, or wait for the European tour.
My guess is that Palu will go as soon as Elsom is ready to come back. That Genia will get more game time. That Baxter will be substituted earlier. That more aggression and numbers will go into the rucks.
In other words, Australian rugby doesn’t have the depth of New Zealand or South Africa and Deans will have to try and improve the performance of the players he has, and hope that some younger talent will come through in club play to challenge the incumbents for their places.
The cliche that comes to mind is ‘a work in progress.’ After Eden Park, though, you have to wonder just how much progress had been made, though.
Recommend this story.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Reds back in contention, but Waratahs need a cleanout (287)
- What Hansen’s first squad means for the Wallabies (191)
- ‘Campo’ too generous: Lord’s dream XV contains just two current Wallabies (161)
- Will Cooper and Mitchell be back in time for Wallaby selection? (156)
- Who will be in the Wallabies’ backrow? (150)
- CAMPO: Will Deans change the style of the Wallabies play? (128)
- Tahs out. Brumbies win ugly. And Quade’s back! (124)
- ALAN JONES: We have the players, it’s the coaches that are to blame (137)
- Road to the 2015 World Cup starts in June (16)
- Six lessons Robbie Deans must learn (Part 2) (56)
- Who will be the Wallabies’ centres? (105)
- RATHBONE: Whatever you do, don’t choke! (12)
- Captain Warburton lifting Wales, says Halfpenny (5)
- Precocious Brumbies eye conference crown
- Road to the 2015 World Cup starts in June (16)
- Six lessons Robbie Deans must learn (Part 2) (56)
- Who will be the Wallabies’ centres? (105)
- Are Roarers picking the Wallabies for the wrong reasons? (20)
- Who will be in the Wallabies’ backrow? (155)
- When should a game plan change and who makes the call? (4)
- Six lessons Robbie Deans must learn (Part 1) (31)
- Explore:
- All Blacks, Berrick Barnes, Bledisloe Cup, George Smith, Richie McCaw, robbie deans, Rugby Union, Tri Nations, wallabies

July 20th 2009 @ 7:17am
Knives Out said | July 20th 2009 @ 7:17am | Report comment
Size is not an issue in test rugby unless a player is of a Napoleonic build i.e. Peter Stringer. The NZ aggression was overwhelming. Read and Thorn are not particularly huge men and yet their committment to the tackle bordered on the kamikaze. Kaino also made some awesome hits. In the latter stages of the game when the stakes were highest Australia did not want to know, yet at the beginning of the match they were the aggressors. Deans’ 22 man selection was flawed, and the timing of his substitions was damaging but Australia lost the battle of the top two inches. That isn’t coachable. I doubt Australia will so malleable at home, but realistically the Wallabies will not have as good a chance to win in NZ for a long time.
It’s all too easy to blame the usual suspects, i.e. Baxter – no comment on the scrummage, Spiro? – and Sharpe. Moore was outfought by Hore, for example, and that pattern was replicated throughout the pack. Mortlock made none of his customary barging impact either. Why take the easy route?
July 20th 2009 @ 7:20am
Untimelyzapped said | July 20th 2009 @ 7:20am | Report comment
SPIRO – Stu Wilson suggested that the reason why the ABs are often slow starters is that the harka drains them emotionally and it takes them some time to get their rugby heads back on. I think Stu has a point.
I’ve read most of the posts on The Roar re Saturday’s game, but nobody menioned the lousy Wallaby punting. I counted eight kicks-out-of-hand that were woeful. Didn’t we all learn to kick when we were kids? How come the Ws are so bad at it, even though they have a kicking coach? And who told Burgess to kick soccer style when his grandmother knows that you have more control on the run with an instep kick? His out-on-the-full kick gave the ABs all that territory and McCaw subsequently scored.
After Giteau’s kick was blocked even Grant Nisbett wondered why Barnes wasn’t taking the clearance on the left side of the field. There’s always going to be somebody coming at the kicker in a defensive situation, so give up a few yards and have the 5/8 pass to the deep-standing, better-angled FB.
Compare the Wallabies’ skill level with that of the players in the State-of-Origin game.
Why is one code so far ahead? Because it’s been pro or semi-pro for years longer?
So many questions. So few answers.
July 20th 2009 @ 7:45am
mcxd said | July 20th 2009 @ 7:45am | Report comment
Spiro, youve made no secret of your favouring of Josh Holmes, i was too a couple of years ago but for the Brumbies he has been lack lustre, not even first choice. whats your reasons for this ?
July 20th 2009 @ 8:19am
Sam Taulelei said | July 20th 2009 @ 8:19am | Report comment
haka had nothing to do with all blacks slow start. wallabies played well in the opening quarter and the all blacks were struggling with the swirling wind and their opponents. they were rusty despite the return of senior players and for some were playing their first test for the season and were off the pace and intensity. individually and collectively they fought their way back by forcing errors and some good play. if the barnes break had been completed then it may have been too great a deficit for the all blacks to peg back. the main difference was the all blacks warmed to their task and contested vigorously after the opening quarter whereas the wallabies don’t yet have the killer instinct or composure in tight contests to maintain pressure. the wallabies will get better but then so will the all blacks.
July 20th 2009 @ 8:26am
Spiro Zavos said | July 20th 2009 @ 8:26am | Report comment
Knives out, my comment on Al Baxter is that he is a weak scrummager. He had a great day against England at Twickenham but he has generally been liability. I don’t pretend to understand the intracacies of the dark arts of propping. But my eyes tell me that when the All Blacks needed a steady scrum on their own ball they got it. When they needed to disrupt the Wallaby scrum on Australian ball, they did so, on Baxter’s side. In another post a Roarer pointed out the technicality that Baxter does not bind, I think, on the jersey under the arms. Anyway the point is that every game he ends up flat on his face several times being penalised and wandering away shaking his head.
Drop him. Anyone else has to be better. Baxter, also, contributes nothing to the rucks and mauls or around the field the way Benn Robinson does.
Stu Wilson’s point about the haka draining the players emotionally (and he should know) makes sense to me. It also should fire them up, so swings and roundabouts I guess. But the slow start seems to be a feature of All Blacks play, except for the occasional sensational opening sequences.
The Wallabies on the other hand tend to start fast and in recent years to fade away.
The kicking of the Wallabies was woeful. This is my complaint about Matt Giteau in comparison, say, to Daniel Carter. Giteau tends to fade away in matches when the flow goes against the Wallabies and his kicking becomes less decisive. Luke Burgess should giveaway kicking at all. George Gregan never kicked and was a better halfback for it. I don’t like kicking halves allthough I must say that the All Blacks halves kicked very well.
Robbie Deans stacked his reserves bench incorrectly for the game, as it turned out. With more full-arm penalties now, after the ELVs, sides don’t tire as much and therefore the need for fliers at the end of the game is less.
July 20th 2009 @ 8:38am
True Tah said | July 20th 2009 @ 8:38am | Report comment
Spiro
Palu’s workrate was pretty bloody good, in the past he has been known to go missing or lacks venom and I have been one of his critics, but I dont think you could say he had a shocker.
Untimelzapped – I take it you did not watch the 2nd SOO game this year?
July 20th 2009 @ 8:43am
Sam Taulelei said | July 20th 2009 @ 8:43am | Report comment
great comment and analysis knives
July 20th 2009 @ 8:45am
Rob said | July 20th 2009 @ 8:45am | Report comment
I watched Palu when he first started at Warringah. I thought he was good at breaking the tackle but otherwise lazy. I haven’t changed my opinion.I was pleased with the Aust early aggression at the breakdown but they did this as if it was something new whereas the AB’s did this as second nature. On this note although he didn’t get much time on the park, Mumm was notable by his absence in tight. As I’ve said many times on other posts Syd club sides (that is the extent of my knowledge ) don’t do much work at training on the breakdown–and yet if you look at statistics and see the number of contests for the ball at a breakdown versus number of scrums and lineouts you wonder why there is a disproportionate amount of time training in each of the areas. And on statistics the point Spiro raises is very valid. For example in defence a statistic might show that player X made 10 tackles and player Y made 1. But rugby is a game that has a lot of off the ball work. Player Y may not have effected the tackles but he may have been instrumental in organising the defence or positioning himself that created errors in the attack. But the obsession with statistics that has been a hallmark of many coaches in Aust. in the past( IMO like Jones and McKenzie ) is an indication that they can only see the obvious and don’t have much depth in themselves
July 20th 2009 @ 8:58am
reds fan said | July 20th 2009 @ 8:58am | Report comment
Well I picked this victory. It doesn’t give me any joy to say that.
Baxter should have gone long ago. He and Burgess are good against weak opposition, but crumble against the top sides. Between these two players we gave up most of our territory and possession.
I agree with Spiro that Gits does fade when the game goes against him. The great combo he had developed with Barnes went missing.
The Barnes miss try is quite typical of him. As a Reds fan I’ve seen it plenty of times before. He is mental suspect. Its why he isnt ever the starting goal kicker in a team. He hates the pressure. In teh past 2 months he has really started believing the press, as shown by his demands in negotiating with the Reds. Just sign and get on with improving your game. You aren’t that good yet.
For me the other big issue is one that has plagued the Wallabies for about 5 years. And that is the inability to secure our own ball at the breakdown, and successfully withstand counter-rucking from the opposition. We stand and watch while they attack the ruck, hoping that the guys in there will hold. We also often run away from our own players and support, and find oursleves isolated. Burgess also is happy to pass it to forwards standing wide whose closest support players aren’t close enough to allow them to get to the breakdown quickly enough. All lead to turnovers.
As I said in my post to Spiro’s pre-game article. The Wallabies once again looked fantastic and had hot air blow up their dates after beating weak teams in the lead up tests. We need to stop doing that! As fans we should shut up during the in-bound tests. Dont praise them. James O’connor is case in point. “Million dollar babe” they screamed after the Canberra test. Well after Saturday night lets be thankful we aren’t spending that kind of money on him.
I fear for us against the Bok. They will be even more physical. I’m not sure we can take that.
July 20th 2009 @ 9:13am
LeftArmSpinner said | July 20th 2009 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Knives, I completely agree with your comments on aggression. I wrote on the Roar that the Wallabies needed to play with the commitment of the NSW SOO in game three, led by the hitters, Mortlock, Palu etc. It didn’t materialise, even in the strong start in the first 20 minutes.
The Wallaby subs usage is flawed. I just don’t understand the idea of picking 22 and then not using them all. If they are good enough to get into the 22, then they are good enough to get on the field for a reasonable time.
Knives, I thought Moore had a very busy game, and Hore was not his visible self. “Outfought” is an interesting choice of words to describe the contest.
Knives, I agree Mortlock did little and didn’t lead by example. Conrad Smith outplayed him in terms of contribution.
Spiro, the stats were very interesting, if only because they contradict the score board. Not that this is unique. I agree about Palu. He has been playing that invisible and passive game all year. Your point about Baxter is something I cant comment on other than that the comparison with Robinson is spot on.
Josh Holmes is not the answer at ½. He is not good enough in the traffic a ½ has to deal with. But, he may end up being a centre if is Club rugby form is anything to go on.
I think the explanation of the Haka being a drain on the AB’s is valid.
Untimelyzapped, the kicking was poor in comparison to the AB’s. Their kicking was very clever in 1st half keeping it under the wind.
The comparison with SOO is a good comparison but the explanation is not. SOO is not far ahead, its just about the desire of the players. The NSW SOO didn’t have it until game three. The wallabies are comfortable in being a side in progress. They should throw this mentality out the window ASAP.
Try tah, Palu is a shadow of his former self from 2008.