Roarers have collectively analyzed, and variously moaned about and defended almost every aspect of the Wallabies’ recent games – the one played last week and all recent vintage. I say almost every aspect because we have overlooked one – I’ll argue the most important one.
No Wallaby side in recent memory has really played like a real fair dinkum team.
Wrong you say? I don’t think so.
Yes they have won some tests and on occasion looked the goods. However, can you really point to any evidence that this collection of players – some great, some good, some indifferent, really appear to care about each other in a way that translates into cohesive and purposeful behavior and a sense of collective honor and pride?
Having all the best players does not make a great team – often just the opposite.
Great teams do not need to have all the best players – occasionally they have none. The Waratahs prove the former year after year. The early Brumbies proved the latter.
In recent years the only obvious things in common to the 15 Wallabies on the pitch were the color of the shirt and the direction they were facing.
I will leave it to someone else to run the ruler across the greatest teams Australia has produced to support or offer rebuttal on my contention. Note that I am not arguing that only those with winning records were great teams. I am referring to those that stood up and represented Australia well, earned the respect of everyone,and made us proud.
In recent years, win or lose, I have not found Wallaby rugby to be really satisfying. Even on good days it was always rather like the light beer commercials ‘tastes great – but (inevitably) less filling.’
The lack of a true team phenomenon translates into many of the current side’s pathologies – lack of commitment, lack of concentration, inability to finish off an opponent, inability to dig deep and come from behind with conviction.
Perhaps the most compelling proof of just how big a problem this is can be seen in the almost obsessive spotlight on the triumphs and failures of individuals.
Rugby at its best is a team game. That is when it is most satisfying to play and when it is most enjoyable to watch.
Not surprisingly this accounts for why we most often find matches decided by kicks to be rather devoid of real substance. We want to see rugby played by a team. We know the difference.
All of us have watched grossly over matched teams play with a true team spirit, a band of brothers, to the bitter end and come away with their heads held up, proud in the knowledge that as a team they may have been outpointed but they were certainly not defeated.
In another thread one of you noted that Mortlock was nowhere to be seen when the Baxter was being penalized over the weekend. Clearly nothing he could do about the penalty – but what about the team?
Yes, we see a fair amount of ‘teamlike’ celebratory milling around when a try is scored. It dates me, but in my school days that would have got us a dressing down later – win or lose. It was always a team try and in the end a team win or loss. If a teammate was having a bad day we all worked on the problem – with two subs for injury only, there was no choice. We were on the mountain roped together for better or worse.
Today we have lost something. The talk is about someone losing the game by missing a tackle, a pass, a kick at goal.
What happened to the team?
The Wallabies as a team didn’t lose last weekend. It was a loss by a collection of 15+ players who showed up in the same kit for a match.
When they had the ball they showed some basic social skills such as sharing the ball and agreeing to meet in small groups. They also seemed willing to try to get it back from the group in the other shirts when they didn’t have it. As long as they didn’t have to commit too very much it was great – and they got a nice shirt.
What was conspicuously absent on Saturday was a palpable sense that they were all in something together for better or worse.
This has nothing to do with individual anything, so comments about lacking mongrel or killer instinct miss the target set up here. I also don’t see this as having much to do with professionalism (professionalism, pride and commitment aren’t mutually exclusive, or with the charisma of captaincy – yes, Mortlock is devoid of it, but even McCaw would have trouble with this bunch.
So, what is missing? where did it go? Can we get it back?
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Rugby Union, wallabies
July 21st 2009 @ 3:07pm
Jack of said | July 21st 2009 @ 3:07pm | Report comment
and no insensity. …………………….INTENSITY you tosser.
July 21st 2009 @ 3:08pm
Rusty said | July 21st 2009 @ 3:08pm | Report comment
If you want a player with mongrel – just find the ugliest player on the pitch. They generally relish play in the close quarter battle and arent concerned about looking flashy prancing about as a back earning stats for line breaks.
July 21st 2009 @ 3:22pm
Spencer said | July 21st 2009 @ 3:22pm | Report comment
OJ – A very good post! Rather long, but worth the read.
The Reds have made some good changes recetny by appointing Dan Herbert as GM, and Horan and Crowley as mentors and recruitment officers. This will build culture and confidence.
I suspect some of the former Wallabies greats may feel uncertain about approaching Deans, however Deans should be approaching them.
Rusty – I reckon Owen Finegan would fit your description. I reckon Jimmy Horwill needs a rocket – he has the passion and talent, but he looks apprehensive, as if he is doesnt have permission to smash some one, even if he is penalized.
July 21st 2009 @ 3:23pm
ozxile said | July 21st 2009 @ 3:23pm | Report comment
LAS, you are correct – they will not ‘die’ for each other. While no one expects them to literally do it, the implication of ‘dieing’ for each other is a recognition of shared responsibility to the team and each other as individuals. They can say they are a team but the evidence is that they do not feel it in the gut. Talk is cheap. There is entirely too much standing around watching others play expecting the best and not nearly enough shared sense of responsibility in the event of the worst. Look closely and you will see that most of the time no one is watching anyone’s back as it were their personal commitment and not just an assignment.
Sheek, you are not reading too much into this. A real sense of shared responsiblity for each other is essential for success in today’s non-stop games (best case – rarely realized) and protracted schedules. The Wallabies will win many games this year but probably not the ones that really matter because the ‘glue’ is missing. The only reason that McCaw isn’t seen tearing into his teammates is because they all know exactly what he expects – from all of them, and they all know what they expect of each other. They also know the consequences of falling their mates.
WLN, I am not sure about a class structure, but I fully concur that the group seemed rather disengaged from George Smith’s milestone. I rather suspect that a good number no longer look at each match as an honour in itself and potentially a one off event of a career. While they may not see themselves as indespensable, if you don’t have a sense of shared responsibility why play each match as if it were your last?
I watched a lot of Leinster’s matches last season and Elsom always played like each match was his last. Perhaps each was. It know appears that he was carrying a significant injury through the tail end of the season. The Irish supporters expect commitment and mostly get it. Leinster’s semi vs Munster was brutal. Munster’s 2nd 15 vs the ABs mid week side was total ‘die for your mates’ commitment. I cannot recall ever having seen the Wallabies play like that – win or lose – maybe the comeback from 21 down in the first 10 minutes against the ABs in ??
Perhaps when Elsom gets back Deans can give him a license to smack anyone he suspects is uncommitted – but, he will probably be too busy. If he does have time you can bet there won’t be much chat about what he expects.
July 21st 2009 @ 3:53pm
Rusty said | July 21st 2009 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
Not that it is their obligation or the administrations but I always felt that perhaps too many former players slip into anonymity post use by date and with them we lose not only experience and knowledge but also culture. All three are important but the loss of culture is what is dampening the passion for the jersey. I understand the sport is professional but to me too many players are more concerned about their paychecks and length of career than putting their bodies on the line to win for each other and those that went before them. I would like to see more former greats involved in a consultive or even a motivational manner to instil the history and responsibility that lies with the players. The remainder needs to come from within the players and the coach. Perhaps in that sense its will be harder for Deans and the Wallabies as the two at the moment share very different lineage?
July 21st 2009 @ 4:48pm
Balmain boy said | July 21st 2009 @ 4:48pm | Report comment
Revisiting the Roar after a 2 year absence and good to see debate is as spirited as ever. Many good comments made re last Saturday and i would only add that the Wallabies lead up against the Baa Baa’s Italy and France who were in Oz on the end of season nite club tour was not ideal in the lead up to a Bledisloe in Auckland even against an AB’s side currently underperforming. The shortfalls in the Wallabies game have been well disected. What worries me is they have a 3 week break and next have to take on SA in SA.. Problems can only be solved on the field.
July 21st 2009 @ 5:48pm
retired rucker said | July 21st 2009 @ 5:48pm | Report comment
Besides the game what activities are still available for team bonding and becoming mates?
Which in turn makes you fight for each other on the paddock.
I think you might find that the mateship engedered in the wining WC wallabies teams of past had a large empasis on geting trollyed together, something us aussies do well.
From meories my commitment and motivation on the field had something todo with the social mateship in the team. The key activities where drinking,chasing skirt, going to the pub, partying, strippers, more partying, golf, chasing skirt….. ect. What does Dean’s use in the professional era knitting and chess? Not that the AB’s are any diff with regard to restricted behavior
July 21st 2009 @ 5:56pm
Matt said | July 21st 2009 @ 5:56pm | Report comment
A really interesting point OJ, and one that has not been mentioned before….I realise that it’s not the coaches sole job to fire up a team. but I wonder how hard it is for Robbie to get his team to want to rip heads off the opposition.when that team and country is one he so proudly represented.
Sure he’s a professional, but kiwi pride runs deep. Let’s see how we go against the Boks.
July 21st 2009 @ 8:38pm
JB said | July 21st 2009 @ 8:38pm | Report comment
OJ – A worthy effort touching many bases. Graham Henry is a solid performer and has selected good teams from what he has available. I am a great admirer of Sivivatu as possibly the best winger going around. Henry seemed to give him a roving commission and he was a threat on or off the ball. Our rugby scribes miss the off the ball play. I think Henry has a better feel of the dynamics of a team than Deans at thiis point in time. Deans has no McCaw and there is no one in sight
I think you have to be careful about ex-Wallabies, Brockhoff is little more than a joke. There is no need to be restricted to rugby, Buckley from AFL would be interesting or Gilchrist, you dont have to mention his sport or even Warne. But the best person is a captain who has presence and authority.
On the angle Deans should pursue, it needs to be genuine from him. I agree with you that he is not into Aussie culture enough to make that play at the moment. That is another reason for having a captain who is ,and Mortlock is patently past it.In the AFC last year I liked the way Brown captained his side. No captains from the S14s come to mind. One of the problems is that the egos of the coaching staff , the CEO and the board members hardly allow for the captain to be visible
Regards Jim .
July 21st 2009 @ 8:57pm
mother teresa said | July 21st 2009 @ 8:57pm | Report comment
WLN,your idea that deans attempt to defuse a class structure in aust rugby by introducing jim williams confuses me,as in nz deans had pat lam lined up as assistant coach of the all blacks who according to you have no class structure problem.
maybe deans is more politically astute ;perhaps he doesnt see either of these assistants to be a threat to the top job or is he just politically correct.
lets just ask tana umaga what he thinks,