If the Wallabies don’t get physical, could get ugly

Roar Pro

By James Mortimer, 8 Aug 2009 James Mortimer is a Roar Pro

Tagged:: Andries Bekker, Ben Alexander, Jannie du Plessis, Peter de Villiers, Rugby Union, Springboks, Tri Nations, wallabies

Related coverage

Australia's Adam Ashley-Cooper celebrates Australia's win during the Tri Nations Test match between the Australian Wallabies and the South African Springboks played at the Subiaco Oval in Perth. AAP Image/Tony McDonough

The Wallabies have had to endure a preparation without coach Robbie Deans as they ready themselves to face the team now considered the best in the world.

Some in the North would argue this point, with Ireland and Wales – who provided the bulk of the recent Lions side – having not played a Southern nation for over eight months.

The reality is that the All Blacks had earned the right to be called the best side in the world based on their heroics of 2008, and were overrun both by their own tactical inanity and a sublime unadorned game plan by Peter De Villiers’ men.

Back to back victories by South Africa over the men in black have earned them both the IRB’s tag as the number one team, and deserved favourites at this stage of the Tri Nations.

But a lot can change in one match.

For Australia, they will look to get a faltered season back on track, after losing to the All Blacks in Eden Park when they had the players, the early lead and the momentum from a four from four home season to have killed off their old adversaries.

Ironically, the All Blacks victory and comeback in the later stages of that game was based around a pressure game plan and physical dominance in the tackle.

This was then the manner in which the Springboks defeated the All Blacks.

An approach that was simple and devastatingly effective.

While some, even within the Bokke’s borders, may say that it is a methodology that is boring and unspectacular – not adhering to the basic principle that rugby is ultimately entertainment – the be all and end all in Test match rugby is about one thing.

Winning.

As the All Blacks have learned, for while their almost kamikaze approach was geared towards attacking and entertaining rugby, few care for a flamboyant style if you lose.

In this, the Wallabies need to find a medium, and the Lions did show the necessary blueprint required to beating the fearsome Springboks.

Quell their physicality, run at them with well executed and supported attacking lines (a la Jamie Roberts and Brian O’Driscoll), and don’t let them apply a stranglehold in your own half.

This needs to be backed up by a strong kicking game, with the Springboks reigning supreme with a triple headed punting menace in Fourie Du Preez, Morne Steyn and Francois Steyn. If this threat can be nullified, the South Africans have shown little inclination to run the ball. While the application of their strategy is brutally simple, it is hardly one that cannot be countered.

However, that is easier said than done.

While the Wallaby pack will be faced with their biggest challenge so far this year, the fate of the Australia’s success will rest on their playing axis of Matt Giteau and Berrick Barnes.

The Springboks have not encountered a pure twin playmaking bloc so far this year, and if the two talented “first and second” five eighths can control and sustain the play, something the All Blacks could not do, then the Wallabies could spring an upset.

The advantage here lies with the Wallabies in the fact that the Springboks will not likely change their patterns, and the tourists will not play dumb or high risk rugby.

But as the All Blacks showed in their Garden of Eden, a confrontational style will upset Australia.

So for all the talk of guile and poise from the Australians, if the Springbok pack – anchored by Victor Matfield and Bakkies Botha playing their 50th test as a combination – dictates terms, then the Bokke will clean sweep all of their Tri Nations home games.

The Wallabies cannot do what the All Blacks did at times and shirk from this threat.

Again, as the Lions showed, you must attack the Springboks where they are most potent.

On paper, the teams appear to be relatively well matched.

It will be both De Villiers and Deans 19th test match in charge of their men, with both fielding unchanged starting XV’s for the first time in their respective tenures.

No one has mentioned it, but there may be thoughts of revenge on the minds of the Wallabies, having suffered a Test record 8-53 loss in Johannesburg in their last meeting.

In this though, the Wallabies will field what appears now to be their strongest side, with no obvious weak link in the team, whereas at Ellis Park the Springboks ran riot in Timana Tahu’s channel.

However, the Springboks have evolved this year, unveiling two brilliant match winners that can do no wrong on the field. The Wallabies though may target the new threats of Steyn and the outstanding Heinrich Brussouw, with the home team relying on the Bull’s first five’s boot and the new dimension they have at the breakdown with the Free State flankers scavenging.

In summary, it is simple.

If the Wallabies can shut down key aspects of the Bokke, they will win. If the World Cup winners are allowed to impose their rudimentary play on the visitors, it could get ugly.

Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.

The Crowd Says (113) | Page 1 of Comments

ohtani's jacket said | August 8th 2009 @ 2:28am | Report comment

Now if I were a Wallaby fan, and it just so happens that I’m not, I’d have to be wondering when this Giteau/Barnes partnership actually won a Test for Australia. I remember them playing well against the All Blacks in Sydney last year, but Barnes was injured and then Mortlock switched to inside centre. How many Tests have they actually played together as a pair and how influential has it really been?

And if I’m AAC, with a kicking first five and a kicking inside centre, do I play as a running fullback? Can I afford to play as a running fullback if the Boks are going to be targeting me under the high ball? I’m confused. What am I? Can my wingers kick? Why does this team have three kickers anyway? Why is our backline so small? How are we going to beat the rush defence if the Boks make their first up tackles on Mortlock? Can our halfback clear a ruck? Can he pass? How is JOC supposed to handle all this? He’s just a kid.

Way too many areas of concern for the Wallabies in my mind, but you never know. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Boks don’t put in anywhere near as good a performance as the last few months.

Reply
- Knives Out said | August 8th 2009 @ 3:07am | Report comment
  
  I can think of more immediate questions: how will the pack measure up at the breakdown? How will the scrummage be refereed? How will the lineout function with Brown at 6? Will Deans trust his forward replacements, and if so what could they bring to the game?
  
  Reply
bennalong said | August 8th 2009 @ 2:55am | Report comment

De Villiers has given another option to the perception we ‘have to get tough’ so I don’t know why no-one else sees the obvious.
Our strategy must be to hold the ball in the forewards with phase play a la Waratahs in the Super 14. This of course requires more numbers ready to support the ballplayer than at Eden Park, but not many more. This is another elementary form of the game and very frustrating for the Boks. It’s also one we can play well.

The area we must improve is performance under the high ball but unless there’s a swirling wind like Eden Park it should be relatively easy to protect the ball taker and secure possession more often than not.

Add to this good tactical kicking to keep them in their own half, and a simple but effective game plan emerges.

Of course we have to meet the physicality of the Boks in defense and we showed a remarkable lack of urgency when challenged by the AB’s. I can’t say I understand what happened but the team seems to be revelling in their newfound attack and perhaps we have a reverse of our old difficulty of switching mindsets from defence to attack.

If this were the case it should be easily remedied.

While I don’t believe a Wallaby win is ‘on the cards” I can’t see why there’s so much hype for the Boks. They have the home ground advantage, and a confidence born from recent hardfought wins but they’re not much different to last year.

I think they should have beaten the Lions and the foreward battle was always going to be more bruising than the one we’ll fight. But we’re smarter

So let’s put some points on them early, hold onto the ball like we own it, and see if we can prick that overweaning pride that might just be ready for a reality check. GO THE WALLABIES ! ! !

Reply
- pothale said | August 8th 2009 @ 3:23am | Report comment
  
  ” think they should have beaten the Lions and the foreward battle was always going to be more bruising than the one we’ll fight. But we’re smarter” – Bennalong.
  
  Eh could you expand on that generality, B? Cos it’s kind of an important issue for tomorrow’s game. Are you proposing that the ‘smart thing is to:
  ” hold the ball in the forewards with phase play a la Waratahs in the Super 14. This of course requires more numbers ready to support the ballplayer than at Eden Park, but not many more. This is another elementary form of the game and very frustrating for the Boks. It’s also one we can play well.”?
  
  you also suggest that: “The area we must improve is performance under the high ball but unless there’s a swirling wind like Eden Park it should be relatively easy to protect the ball taker and secure possession more often than not.” How exactly is Australia going to relatively easily protect the ball-taker and secure possession?
  
  Reply
- Who Needs Melon said | August 8th 2009 @ 7:24am | Report comment
  
  And you’re advocated we copy the Waratahs style of play?!? Sorry – you lost me there.
  
  Reply
  - onside said | August 8th 2009 @ 3:00pm | Report comment
    
    What pothale means is, never under any circumstances give
    the ball to those blokes on the wing because they might score .
    
    Reply
MarkH said | August 8th 2009 @ 8:37am | Report comment

My issue with Australian Rugby is that weve always turned our noses up at ‘Thugery’. I recon that the thing thats missing. A little bit of bastardry. An elbow here a knee there, It always gets them looking out for you.

That said, SA will go in tonight a little cocky and possibly will get shown up. Go Wallabies.

Reply
johnno42 said | August 8th 2009 @ 9:29am | Report comment

well. i;ve read the comments so far…. and i predict a ‘cricket score to the boks’.

Reply
LeftArmSpinner said | August 8th 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment

James, I agree fully. The wallabies, despite what they might be thinking, are paid and resourced to deliver extreme physical performances, and for that matter, extreme mental performances.

The they get paid large amounts of money, they don’t play every week, unlike they’re league brethren, and they are representing the country. Anything short of it fully committed performance is unacceptable. I strongly suspect that the players have a completely different mindset. Sure they will commit themselves, but only to the point with a retain their position in the team had a little bit more. The current wallabies team is missing the players with that fierce commitment and resolve, as shown by farr Jones, Lynagh, eales, Steve Waugh, Gilchrist, McGrath, Liz Ellis, Ian Thorpe.

Tonight we will see if they cant deliver it.

As for the springboks, I see them as similar to school playground bullies. At some point, someone needs to test the bullies resolve. To do this, the person running the test needs to be completely committed.

I recall several years ago, at the SFS, the Phil Waugh gave Burger a lesson in “physics”. The much vaunted Burger backed off like the true puppy he is, deep down. Waugh was not even captain at the time.

Reply
Harry said | August 8th 2009 @ 12:51pm | Report comment

There have been some questionable referee decisions made in recent games which have favoured the home side and one can only only we don’t see a repeat performance tonight.

Reply
Guy Smiley said | August 8th 2009 @ 1:46pm | Report comment

I just worry about the Wallabies’ tactical kicking, especially away from home. It has been poor for far too long and made worse by lazy chasing – against the Boks it cold cost them heavily.

But bearing in mind the Boks’ ‘tactic’ of waiting for opposition errors it could well be in Australia’s interests to kick for position all game and offer nothing except inside the 22. Provided they can get the kicking right.

Reply
sheek said | August 8th 2009 @ 2:27pm | Report comment

James,

If the Wallabies don’t get physical, make that, ‘WILL’ get ugly!

For the Wallabies….. on the scoreboard.

Reply
GreenandGold said | August 8th 2009 @ 3:09pm | Report comment

I miss the days when the Wallabies has Noriega, Finegan, Richard Harry, Harrison…there was some real grunt in those men.
Now we have Palu who is a ballet dancer trapped in a rugby player’s body. Apart from the odd good game he’s had against the Sharks, he has shown no aggression or hunger to destroy his opponent.
We will miss Rocky tonight but lets hope we see a dominant physical display from the Wallabies.

Reply
bennalong said | August 8th 2009 @ 5:04pm | Report comment

Pothale

The frequent use of the high ball is an addition to modern rugby that reflects the difficulty in breaking the line. I predict it will recede after a short life because you are surrendering possession if the ball is caught by the opposition.

It’s not difficult to call a mark now and if the ball is taken ‘off the ground’, advancing players have to hold off on the hit.

I’m not sure why you have a problem with the idea of protecting the catcher, it’s done to a greater or lesser extent at the kick off, and simply involves those in front of the receiver moving in close and holding their ground.

Doubtless what really gave you the irrits is that I said we’re smarter than the Lions forewards. I’d be willing to bet that on IQ terms alone it’s true. What I meant though is that we aren’t about to get into a bash and barge physical superiority stoush which I enjoyed watching, but which isn’t necessary…………………………..I hope.
We have a mobile pack and can’t match it for agro. You therefore play to your strengths which relate to playing the channels and teaming up in the drive. The Waratahs pack was effective playing these tactics Melon

I think it’s entirely possible to come out even in the set pieces and in the scavenging. If rules applying to cleaning out are strictly enforced and human missiles diving over/into are penalised, I think we can hold our own ruck possession regardless of the hard men.

After that things start to go the way of the team that’s faster to the breakdown, and smarter in the backs.

I believe that’s us!

Reply
- Knives Out said | August 8th 2009 @ 8:25pm | Report comment
  
  Bennalong,
  
  I think Pothale’s point is (and I may well be wrong) that the Lions didn’t attempt to out-bash the Springboks. If anything the reverse is true and that is confirmed by the selection of Mears, Vickery, Wyn Jones and Croft in the test pack. The Lions attempted to play running rugby in every single game on tour, and like the All Blacks did last week in wet weather too. However, that Adam Jones and Simon Shaw dominated their opposite numbers in the tests suggests that had the Lions actually played a more physical-based game then they would have won. Australia does not have big men in the mould of Jones and Shaw so I would agree that Australia won’t play that type of game, BUT the confrontation at the ruck cannot be avoided, and if that isn’t going well then neither will any attempts to go wide or short off the ruck. Bfollows A, if you catch my drift. Anyway, speaking as a Pom I’m actually looking forward to the game, which surprises me.
  
  Reply
- Knives Out said | August 8th 2009 @ 8:27pm | Report comment
  
  ..
  Bennalong,
  
  I think Pothale’s point is (and I may well be wrong) that the Lions didn’t attempt to out-bash the Springboks. If anything the reverse is true and that is confirmed by the selection of Mears, Vickery, Wyn Jones and Croft in the test pack. The Lions attempted to play running rugby in every single game on tour, and like the All Blacks did last week in wet weather too. However, that Adam Jones and Simon Shaw dominated their opposite numbers in the tests suggests that had the Lions actually played a more physical-based game then they would have won. Australia does not have big men in the mould of Jones and Shaw so I would agree that Australia won’t play that type of game, BUT the confrontation at the ruck cannot be avoided, and if that isn’t going well then neither will any attempts to go wide or short off the ruck. B follows A, if you catch my drift. Anyway, speaking as a Pom I’m actually looking forward to the game, which surprises me.
  
  Reply
- pothale said | August 9th 2009 @ 3:22am | Report comment
  
  Benaalong – if you read my post, you’ll see that I asked you questions, as opposed to give you my opinion.
  
  So I didn’t state that I had a problem with protecting the catcher, I simply asked: “How exactly is Australia going to relatively easily protect the ball-taker and secure possession?”
  
  and following today’s game, do you think this (a) worked and (b) was a telling factor in the game?
  
  Also, you stated: “Doubtless what really gave you the irrits is that I said we’re smarter than the Lions forewards. I’d be willing to bet that on IQ terms alone it’s true. What I meant though is that we aren’t about to get into a bash and barge physical superiority stoush which I enjoyed watching, but which isn’t necessary…………………………..I hope.
  We have a mobile pack and can’t match it for agro. You therefore play to your strengths which relate to playing the channels and teaming up in the drive. The Waratahs pack was effective playing these tactics Melon”
  
  I didn’t give any indication that it irritated me, I was more interested in your claim that the Ozzies were smarter than the Lions, and what this meant..
  
  Following today’s match, do you think (a) that’s still true and (b) what positive effect it had on the game for the Wallabies?
  
  Reply