Wallaby forwards are soft, time for change
Roar Guru By Rickety Knees, 11 Aug 2009 Rickety Knees is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Al Baxter, Benn Robinson, dean mumm, James Horwill, Luke Burgess, Nathan Sharpe, Rocky Elsom, Rugby Union, Springboks, Tri Nations, wallabies
101 Have your say
Related coverage
Games of rugby are seldom won when the forward pack does not turn up to play the full 80 minutes, as evidenced on Saturday when the Wallabies went down to South Africa. Changes need to be made.
Al Baxter, rightly or wrongly, is a target of referees.
Unlike Benn Robinson, Baxter is the invisible man in the pack. The scrum became a potent weapon once Alexander replaced Baxter. His time has come.
I am most disappointed with Nathan Sharpe.
Our lineout was obliterated by the Boks, and as the senior lineout man, his inability to devise a counter strategy does not bode well. There is a perception that Sharpe can be intimidated and goes missing when the going gets tough.
It is time for the ARU to bring back Vickerman, no matter the cost.
Palu is not, and never has been, an 80 minute footballer. Dean Mumm lacks the aggression required for the heat-of-the-battle. Rocky Elsom cannot return quickly enough.
Luke Burgess, as nice a guy that he is – and nobody tries harder – has a passing game that is below Test standard. He gets flustered and is a luxury the Wallabies can no longer afford.
Genia is a hard nut with a superior passing game – his time has also come.
The captain of the side should be a hard nut forward or an inspirational halfback. Inspiration is always needed in and around the forwards, whether it be the right action or the right words, or both.
James Horwill is such a hard nut, whose aggression and large imposing frame is well suited to the job.
For mine, the forward pack would be Alexander, Moore, Robinson, Vickerman, Horwill (C), Pocock, Smith (no8) and Elsom.
Reserves TFN (until Damian Fitzpatrick is ready), Cowan, Brown and Caldwell.
And barking up their backsides is Genia.
Recommend this story.
August 11th 2009 @ 11:40am
Jameswm said | August 11th 2009 @ 11:40am | Report comment
Rickety – what is your issue with TPN? Yes, the scrum got better when Alexander came on. But did you fail to notice that TPN came on at the same time?
TPN had 3 good throws and one crooked one. He got pinged twice, but one was wrong and you can’t blame him for that. Moore is far from perfect and it’s high time TPN was given a chance to start.
Alexander was on the other side so I didn’t get to see what was happening with him on the Beast.
Is that true about Caldwell? He’s lost 24kgs?
August 11th 2009 @ 11:53am
Rickety Knees said | August 11th 2009 @ 11:53am | Report comment
TPN has had trouble throwing – he is a great hooker and is wonderful around the paddock. But he seems to muck up his throws at the most inopportune times. What also worries me is that he probably has a reputation with referees of being a crooked thrower so he now gets unduly attention from them. There was one lineout that got called back after Giteau had passed to Barnes – for a crooked throw. Rightly or wrongly Baxter is being hammered by Refs in scrums, are we starting to get the same for TPN in lineouts?
A few Roarers have suggested that he should be a flanker – he is certainly good enough to play there and he won’t have to throw.
I have not heard this news about Caldwell.
August 11th 2009 @ 3:41pm
fox said | August 11th 2009 @ 3:41pm | Report comment
SOLUTION: Keep TPN at hooker and let Robinson throw. He has a good, solid and accurate arm and threw with some success for the Waratahs. There is nothing in the laws of the game that state the hooker must throw.
August 11th 2009 @ 4:59pm
TommyM said | August 11th 2009 @ 4:59pm | Report comment
Absolutely right. There’s no way you could accomodate TPN in the back row as he’s far too short for 6 or 8 and far behind the other options at 7.
August 11th 2009 @ 11:44am
ohtani's jacket said | August 11th 2009 @ 11:44am | Report comment
I don’t see how you can blame the forwards for that loss.
The forwards were competitive in the scrum and managed to defend the maul. The lineouts were a shambles and they were a lot of turnovers and penalties at the breakdown, but the same thing happened to the All Black forwards the previous two weekends. The Wallaby forwards were not brought into the game in any meaningful way on attack. They more or less had to defend all game long. In that sense, they did a pretty good job because South Africa never ran away with the Test and in the second half Australia were slightly better than the Boks.
The Boks make sides play from their own 22, so really it’s the tactical skills of the backs that are under the spotlight. If it were really about grunt then the Boks would dominate through their scrum or forward play in the opposition half. The backs have to decide whether to kick or run, and really only Barnes with his kicking in open space and O’Connor with his decision to run from the fullback were the only backs making clear cut decisions. Giteau let the team down badly.
The problem for Australia and New Zealand is that they don’t get enough attacking opportunities in the opposition 22. The only way to get near the opp 22 is to make a linebreak from their own half. They have to cover on foot the distance than South Africa are making with their kicking game. There wasn’t much opportunity for the forwards to have a crack at the line or for them to really get involved in any sort of attacking phase. The fact that the Wallabies scored that try through Giteau shows they at least retained possession on that rare trip where they were within striking distance.
Obviously, the Wallabies put pressure on themselves by losing 8 or 9 lineouts on their own throw and that’s something they’ll need to work on ahead of the two home Tests against South Africa, but this was not the same kind of Test as Auckland where the breakdown was hugely contested.
August 11th 2009 @ 12:06pm
Rickety Knees said | August 11th 2009 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
OJ – you lose your set piece in 3N you lose the game. In Auckland it was the scrum (Baxter), in Capetown it was the lineout (Sharpe). We have Kaplan and Joubert for the next two tests. If we don’t get our set piece right with these two pettifog referees we might as well not turn up.
August 11th 2009 @ 3:07pm
JK said | August 11th 2009 @ 3:07pm | Report comment
Nice summation-no bias, no talk of cheating, just simple analysis. Ultimately that’s what the Boks are doing, keep the ball away from your 22 and play in the opposition’s half.
August 11th 2009 @ 11:58am
Mike said | August 11th 2009 @ 11:58am | Report comment
OJ,
Very astute analysis. Couldn’t put it better…
August 11th 2009 @ 12:12pm
Peter K said | August 11th 2009 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
The forwards matched the Bok ontensity at the breakdown , they were not smashed off it or missing alah Eden Park.
Sharpe was crap as lineout general. We smashed them in the scrum more due to TPN than Alexander.
Brussow totally outplayed Smith who was a liability that game.
We lost the ball in turnover in rucks more due to the backs than the forwards since the backs were isolated.
The backs did not handle the high kick, and did not kick well.
Obviously we would take Vickerman when he is available, Yes Sharpe is soft and goes missing. So does Moore when its a hard game. Brown gave away stupid penalties and a yellow.
Palu did not have any attacking impact but name a forward that did? They had no ball to run with really. Palu did defend well as did all the forwards.
I have been suggesting for a year now that Horwill should be captain ahead of Mortlock.
Mumm is even softer than Sharpe and goes MIA even more.
My preferred team with Mortlock out would be
Robinson
TPN
Alexander
Horwill
Sharpe (Kimlin would be preferred but is injured I believe)
Elsom
Smith , but if he gifts more stupid penalties I would give Pocock a go
Palu
Genia
Barnes
Mitchell
Giteau
Ashley-Cooper
Hynes
JoC
August 11th 2009 @ 1:30pm
Justin said | August 11th 2009 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
Turner for Mitchell and its a good backline…
August 11th 2009 @ 7:59pm
ammo said | August 11th 2009 @ 7:59pm | Report comment
peter k, kimlin is a very showy player like mumm with no substance or heart.
August 11th 2009 @ 12:20pm
Mike said | August 11th 2009 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
Rickety,
However hopeless Joubert’s reffing of the scrum was in Auckland, that still doesn’t mean that it lost us the game. In a mistake-riddled match, it would be fair to say that (outside the scrum) the ABs made less mistakes.
Also, in the face of truly incompetent refereeing (as opposed to merely idiosyncratic or inconsistent reffing) it doesn’t matter whether your team is good or not. But Joubert may improve. In recent times commentators at all level are prepared to criticise the performance of the referees – and rightly so. They are just as much under the spotlight as the players. Joubert must know that his days at test level are numbered if he doesn’t lift his performance, and maybe that will have the desired effect.
August 11th 2009 @ 12:37pm
Rickety Knees said | August 11th 2009 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
Mike – there were two instances in Auckland that are still fresh in my memory. The first time Baxter got penalised cost 3 points then later he got penalised in an attacking scrum 10m out from the AB’s line and under the posts – a try scoring opportunity lost. In both instance IMHO Joubert got it wrong. With different decisions it could have been a 10 point turn around.
This post has been about getting the engine room right. There a problems with the backs but until we can win the ball and provide a consistant high quality of delivery ……
I can’t argue with Peter K’s backline.
August 11th 2009 @ 12:46pm
Jameswm said | August 11th 2009 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
I can – Lachie Turner should be in it.
August 11th 2009 @ 12:48pm
ohtani's jacket said | August 11th 2009 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
You have to bear in mind that the Springboks spend an extraordinary amount of time in the opposition half and in and around their 22. I don’t know what the figure was for Newlands, but in Durban it was mindblowing. I’ve never seen anything like it across three Test matches. Most defensive sides will concede penalties if the opposition are in their 22, but since the Springboks are spending 10-15 minutes in the opposition 22, NZ and Australia are conceding double the amount of penalties they usually would, and Steyn just doesn’t miss.
Where the All Blacks and Wallabies are really struggling is that normal rugby logic would dictate that if you kick long (and particularly if you find touch), South Africa would clear their line and you’d have an attacking lineout somewhere in the opposition half. But the Boks have such monster boots and such a strong lineout that before you know it, you’re back in your own 22. The whole strategy of making the Boks play from their own half doesn’t work because the Boks game plan is like giant rubber band. They just bounce stuff back at you. Their lineout is at the point where they don’t really care whether it’s their own throw or not. The ball is for them.
I understand what you’re saying about the lineout, Rickety, but once you start losing a couple on your own throw, it gets into the jumpers head and it gets into the hookers head and the lineout can’t function. Right now, the Boks are reading the plays too easily. It’s pretty obvious that if you failed going long, you’ll try going short. When the All Blacks were struggling with their lineout for the upteenth million time a few years back, Robin Brooke taught them to have more movement prior to the throw, to essentially fake where the lift was coming from.
I’m pretty convinced from what I saw the last three weeks that counter attacking is the way to beat these Boks, but you have to counter attack as a team, so that you have passing options and the ball carrier is supported. It’s not an easy strategy to pull off, but the English did it extremely well against the French and the Lions also managed to do it well against the Boks, particularly in the third Test. James O’Connor showed that there’s a mile of space down the wing if you beat the chaser. That and only contesting the rucks when you have a clear counter rucking opportunity are the two things I would stress.
August 11th 2009 @ 1:01pm
Rickety Knees said | August 11th 2009 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
Great post OJ!
My frustration is that I believe that half of the Wallaby pack are soft and at the pivotal moment, when that moment can be won or lost and often the day can be won, in that moment – the Wallabies tend to go missing – especially when the going get’s really tough. Until we address this underlying malaisse we are kidding oursleves.
August 11th 2009 @ 1:07pm
Rickety Knees said | August 11th 2009 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
OJ – what is the origin of “Ohtani’s Jacket” ?
August 11th 2009 @ 2:10pm
ohtani's jacket said | August 11th 2009 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
Ohtani was a Japanese pro-wrestler who was a lightweight and extremely skinny. He used to wear leather jackets to the ring to make himself appear tougher than he really was. One day a friend of mine commented that Ohtani was a “weenie” and I mentioned how badass his jackets were. I started using the name as a joke and it kinda stuck.
I can understand wanting more from the forwards, but even in the Macqueen/Eales era it was difficult for the Wallabies to win in South Africa. The Boks relish a forward contest. NZ has been at their most successful against the Boks in SA when they’ve used width and pace. Having said that, I was watching highlights of the 1996 tour to SA just before and the defence in 1996 was nowhere near as good as it is now.
August 11th 2009 @ 3:03pm
Rickety Knees said | August 11th 2009 @ 3:03pm | Report comment
Thanks Mate,
I am thinking about hiking up in northern Hokkaido – got any tips?
August 12th 2009 @ 12:14am
ohtani's jacket said | August 12th 2009 @ 12:14am | Report comment
I’ve never been to Hokkaido myself, but I hear there’s plenty of Aussies there.
August 12th 2009 @ 12:55pm
AndyS said | August 12th 2009 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
Don’t do it in winter (absolutely awesome skiing though, I hear)
August 11th 2009 @ 1:08pm
John allyne said | August 11th 2009 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
Great article, but its not the forwards that are soft but the backs, Turner ,Mitchell ,Giteau they never contest at the break down and are not rugged enough in the tackle, they also do not chase the kick through, i know ne`s not the best attacker, but if the coaches are as good as their ment to be, why not Tom Carter the warathas No 12. He`s one of the best defenders, always chases the kicks,brillant at the break down and is as tough as nails, a real go forward person.
August 11th 2009 @ 3:46pm
fox said | August 11th 2009 @ 3:46pm | Report comment
No pace. Limits the backline’s options in attack. makes them easier to defend against. Doesn’t even warrant selection in provincial rugby.
August 11th 2009 @ 1:27pm
Bay35Pablo said | August 11th 2009 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
What we really need is Sharpe gone, and replaced with a real mongerel. Owen Finegan style. That’s why Vickerman or Caldwell would be good. Plus Vicks brings something extra to the line outs. However, having that 2nd mongerel in the engine room really helps. Can’t tell I’m an old 2nd rower …
The Boks have 2 in Botha and Matfield. You have to match fire with fire.
However, it is also the half back-5/8. Burgess has had enough chances. Drop him to the bench at best. Put in Genia and recall Sheehan to the squad.
With a mongerel rather than butter in the 2nd row, and a half back that isn’t pressuring the back line, it would make a huge difference. i think the rest of the team would preform a lot better with those 2 basic changes.
August 11th 2009 @ 5:09pm
TommyM said | August 11th 2009 @ 5:09pm | Report comment
Don’t agree that Matfield has much mongrel. All the good he does is in the air. As Botha said the other day, he does the cleaning out for the both of them.
Sharpe is our equivalent to Matfield- he may not be as superioir in the air, but in general link play and workrate I actually think he is in some respects a more complete lock (although I have occasionally had serious doubts about whether he pushes enough in the scrums and how ‘tough’ he is. Bit up and down that’s for sure).
Our ‘enforcer’ lock is meant to be Horwill- but he seems to have shirked this responsibility this year after showing some promise on that front I thought for the last few seasons.
August 11th 2009 @ 1:43pm
Brett McKay said | August 11th 2009 @ 1:43pm | Report comment
What do we all make of John Connolly’s latest attempt at being relevant again, suggesting to Wayne Smith in The Oz today that now is the time for Aussie Rob to revive the ‘Giteau at 9′ experiment??
I’m not buying it, for the record. Smacks of weakening a strength to me..
Didn’t see the game on the weekend, but was glad to hear Ashley-Cooper went well at outside centre after Mortlock went off. I’ve long thought 13 is his best spot, but getting time there was always going to be his main problem, at state and national level..