These Wallabies aren’t good enough
Roar Guru
By Rickety Knees, 24 Aug 2009 Rickety Knees is a Roar Guru
Related coverage
Despite Jonathan Kaplan providing the Wallabies with many favourable refereeing decisions, the Wallabies were not able to prevent a surging All Black team from winning the contest.
The current Wallaby playing group is simply not good enough.
Now that the Wallabies are left to only to play for pride, it is time to make both positional and generational changes.
Mat Giteau and Berrick Barnes positions should be swapped.
Giteua’s kicking under pressure is woeful whereas Barnes has a superior kicking game. Giteau was rated amongst the best No 12′s – the same cannot be said for his play at 10.
For the short while when Giteau was off injured, Barnes’ composure playing 10 in the last test against South Africa was a revelation.
Luke Burgess does not have the passing game required for test rugby. It is time to start with Will Genia.
The Wallabies backline will not go anywhere until the halves are sorted out. Digby Ioane’s explosive running provides the Wallabies with an X factor that they desperately need.
Drew Mitchell’s wrong option taking presents an unacceptable risk to Wallabies.
The time has come to impose further generational change.
Baxter and Sharpe should drop out of the Wallabies Squad with young Wallaby Sekope Kepu (currently playing brilliantly for Randwick) joining as the fourth prop.
In a previous post I suggested that the ARU should do what is needed to bring back Dan Vickerman, nothing has changed. We need his lineout generalship and more importantly his mongrel general play.
Dean Mumm does not impose himself – he needs to toughen up. No 8 continues to be a problem, sitting in the sin bin during the last two tests does not do Richard Brown nor the Wallabies any favours.
Unfortunately Brown, as this stage of his career, does not appear to be an effective ball runner. Hopefully Palu’s time out of the playing group will be the jolt he needed to understand that he needs to play for 80 minutes.
The sad fact is that the Wallabies tried hard and were just not good enough. It is time to move on and find a side that is.
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.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (28)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (18)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
Viscount Crouchback said | August 24th 2009 @ 8:44am | Report comment
I agree, but how does one “find a side that is?” You can’t just sign a new player, like a club coach can; you have to work with the cattle you have. The lack of depth in Australian rugger is well known. One can argue that Deans should move straight to a new generation of players, but that could get very, very ugly. We saw what happened to a callow England team in last year’s Autumn series. I’m not sure Test rugger is any place for kids.
Bonza said | August 24th 2009 @ 9:01pm | Report comment
He is already using O’Conner, Beale, Cooper, Turner, Alexander, Genia so he is already using “kids”. This lack of depth concept is a misnoma. We used to be able to select from two provinces only to find a team to beat a good all blacks team. We now have 4, soon to be 5 provinces and we complain about depth. We have more experienced players than ever before in our rugby history. If they are not good enough or not playing the right game plan then thats another story
sheek said | August 24th 2009 @ 8:52am | Report comment
RK,
Herein lies the dilemma….. where are the alternatives?
I agree with the headline – ‘These Wallabies aren’t good enough’. But I believe they’re trying their hardest. And the alternatives aren’t any better. Not at present, anyway.
We can dabble with changes in personnel, & it might make us feel good that we’re doing something pro-active. But it will be like changing the deckchairs on the Titantic. The fundamental problem remains, Australian rugby is sinking, & not too many people want to acknowledge this brutal truth.
The mess we find ourselves in today, has taken 6-10 years to arrive. If we started now in turning the tide, it would take another 6-10 years to see the benefit. But the longer it takes for people to acknowledge Australian rugby has a few problems, the longer we will remain in the doldrums.
84% said | August 25th 2009 @ 9:57am | Report comment
Couldn’t agree more, I’d go as far as requesting a Royal comission into the mess that is now Australian Rugby concentrating on where all the money has gone and why so much of it was splurged on the poor old Leagues that had no hope of ever playing the Union game to any effect. The ARU showed great disloyalty to it’s players whilst feathering their own nests and employing personel that are quite frankly not up to the job. Deans can only work with what he is presented with but hopefully he will have greater imput as time moves on.
Can anyone answer me this ? …. who ownes Rugby Union ? because it certainly is not the players and the coaches, the very ones that is Rugby Union,
Hoy said | August 24th 2009 @ 10:02am | Report comment
Viscount, why can’t the national side pull some youngster from obscurity to step up? How many times has it happened in the past with good results. Coaches believe in a club player, and play them with great success? Kearns was one for example. Plucked from second grade, below non other than Eddie I believe.
Surely even though the game has gone professional there is still the ability to drop and select as the coach sees fit. It can’t be all done by contracts these days can it? “Oh, we can’t select him, because he isn’t contracted to the ARU” etc… (having said that, noone can convince me that the league converts didn’t get selection due to simply being signed up).
It is true that these doldrums have been a long time building. I just don’t understand what happened to the greatness at the turn of the century. Surely losing a few GREAT players shouldn’t have left us in such a bad state as it did around 2003 onwards. It can only be bad coaching, in my opinion.
Lets be honest, if we didn’t make the final of that years RWC (through luck really), Eddie wouldn’t have had a job the next year, surely. And there was only minor improvement under JC. So since the great team of ’98 to ’01, we have had bad coaching ideas being pumped through. That may take some time to break down and start again.
I am by no means a purveyor of the old Play what is in front jive, but many smarter people than me have noticed that Wallabies aren’t even recognising great chances that open up on the field. They just aren’t grasping it. It can’t be that they are not good enough, jeez, they are a national team. Supposedly the best 22 in the country. If they can’t grasp the idea of looking, seeing an overlap outside them, passing the ball, maybe they aren’t the best 22 in the country.
Mick Gold Coast QLD said | August 24th 2009 @ 10:46pm | Report comment
“If they can’t grasp the idea of looking, seeing an overlap outside them, passing the ball, maybe they aren’t the best 22 in the country.”
I reckon that’s a big part of the problem – they have not been told by people that matter that they are not as good as their manager, mum, mates and salary say they are.
It seems likely there is a contract condition that the ARU is not permitted to “upset the kiddies” by asserting they are at Deferred Success level!!
They are paid so much and deliver so little – blokes like $otsa on three quarters of a mill per annum; a 2nd string hooker who cannot throw earning money as if he can and sitting on the bench all year; “Better then Carter, Wilkinson, Russell Fairfax and Hugo Porta” Giteau who, when he has exhausted his limited ability, kicks in panic into a sea of legs but still gets paid as if he didn’t do that (watch again his last 3 games – the Saffers and the Blacks own television sets too. He does exactly the same things in every game). Mumm, merely making up the numbers, but getting paid a fixed match payment. Mitchell, who kicks so poorly, standing there afterwards, waving his arms about telling team mates how to play!
If I fail to deliver my clients will not pay me. These blokes do not live in the real world and are not expected to by their employer. Cape Town was appalling – they were no better on Saturday.
Rah Rah Rasputin said | August 24th 2009 @ 10:43am | Report comment
RK,
I agree Kepu would be a good addition to the wallabies squad, but probably at the expense of Cowen who has seen little if any game time. With Robinson and Alexander able to play loosehead it seems silly have a third specialist in the squad. Yes, Kepu plays predominately on the loosehead side, but he has the type of brute physicality the Wallabies need. He has also spent time at tighthead for the Tahs and hopefully could adjust in a similar manner as Alexender has.
The only other players I think would like to see in the Wallabies squad are Digby Ioane and Dan Vickerman.
The Wallabies current backline is pretty light on compared to previous teams, and especially since Mortlocks injury. Tim Horan commented earlier this year, with reference to whether Tuquiri would make it back into the Wallabies, that in test matches, size does matter. What does size count for on the rugby field? Simple, the ability to break tackles. it is something that is sorely missed by the current backline, especially as defences seems to ante up in big tests, so there is far less room for a pure finishers try on the outside. Of the current backline, only Ashley-Cooper has real linebreaking ability. Ione’s speed, strength and physicality would challenge any international backlines defence.
As for Dan Vickerman, well isn’t that obvious?
As for the No. 8 positon, well Rocky did play a bit there for Lenster (at Robbie Deans suggestion). Maybe if a No 6 emerges, this could become a permanent switch. Kimlin, Mumm, Higginbottom are names that immediately come to mind. What does everyone think.
84% said | August 25th 2009 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
“What does size count for on the rugby field? Simple, the ability to break tackles”
This mostly applies to the League style of tackle so prevelent in today’s Rugby Union. Yes if you go high (waist up) of course size and upper body strenghth matters but if you tackle Rugby Union style (around the legs) it dosn’t matter one whit what size or speed the ball- runner is you will bring him down if excuited properly within two or three metres.
Kenny said | August 24th 2009 @ 10:52am | Report comment
At least they were “brave”
I wanted to bang my head on a wall when Phil Kearns said that in the post match analysis.
oliver said | August 24th 2009 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
The selection process needs to be changed. Someone suggested Caldwell to partner Horwill, but he has been overlooked in favour of Mumm despite the fact that Caldwell is a better 2nd rower and a more forceful player. It’s no good blaming Deans or the players-Deans can only work with what he has got; players can only play to their ability. Its the selectors who should be getting axed for their poor performances.
Bonza said | August 24th 2009 @ 8:55pm | Report comment
Oliver – you are talking dribble. The selectors and the coaches are the same people, you just need to add High Perfromance director David Nucifora, who coaches the Aust u20 team and they are the same. This is not rugby league. The Head Coach gets to pick whoever he wants.
You must be living under a mushroom because Caldwell prospects have been praised numerous times but so has his sickness and absence from the game at the moment. Good idea but not practical at the moment
Deans only works with the players he chooses so if you dont like the selections then you need to tell him
Todd Day said | August 24th 2009 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
At last someone has said it, the Wallabies on saturday worked hard and diligently to the best of their ability but lets be honest. They pull out one every now and then but are not good enough to win consistently. Elsom, Smith and Robinson are world class forwards but thats it! Alexander, Polota Nau, Moore, Cowan, Mumm, Pocock, Brown will get there but it’ll take another 18-24 months. I read yesterday talk of Dunning being considered for the wallabies eoy tour? He can’t hold down his tight head spot at eastwood a 20 year old kid is keeping him out and by a long way apparently! As for the backs Giteau is not a world class 10, and I don’t know if Barnes is either but we all know Gitean is a world class 12 and Ioane will be a world class 13 given time. AAC is a world class player but lets not make him a utility 15 is where we need him right now. Burgess isn’t our man, Genia can be and Holmes should have been lets get it sorted out. On the wings we have a few options coming through but Mitchell shouldn’t be one of them! O’Connor will be great in a few years but he isn’t yet. Cooper and Beale bin them for a year or two make them earn there stripes not pick them on potential. Interestingly as age grade players they never beat the big international teams or were outstanding at junior world cups? In fact the only one that has a positive win/loss record at 10 would be Lialefano who was the 10 at the 19s world cup?
Not only do the Wallabies need to make some tough choices but so do the S14 teams pick players that are good enough to make the step up, even if that means going with the young guys. Look at the team that won the U19 world cup 2-3 years ago why haven’t those guys been able to develop more? The Fainga brothers? Holmes? The only ones that have really moved forward from that team are Wickes (force) and Lialefano (brumbies). With no national comp we have to rely on Sydney club rugby and as we are realising too late that is just not good enough.
reds fan said | August 24th 2009 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
As my Kiwi mate says to me re. the faingaa twins… you got sold two duds!
Armchair-critic said | August 24th 2009 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
All well and good to say we must make wholesale changes but there aren’t a lot of other options.
Also, of Saturday night’s side, the backs had 6 players who debuted last season (burgess, turner, o’connor, genia, cross, hynes). Barnes is still relatively green at international level for a 5/8. Ashley-Cooper and Mitchell have hardly been regulars and Giteau is still finding his feet as a 10 at international level (should possibly be at 12).
In the forwards one gets the feeling that the old-timers in the forwards are on their last chance and the new generation will start to see more game time before the year is out (Baxter-Alexander, Sharpe-??, Moore-TPN, with Pocock and Kepu/Cowan on the bench)
The lack of composure shown by the Wallabies can be partially attributed to the fact that a large percentage of the side is not accustomed to closing out and winning important tests. Smith, and to a degree Giteau and Sharpe, are the only ones remaining from a time where we had a successful national side. The young guys need to acquire the winning habit and this could possibly relate back to the fact they aren’t winning at S14?
Just my thoughts anyway
Greg said | August 24th 2009 @ 2:47pm | Report comment
The Wallabies were outplayed in that game rather than the other tests which were all daft lab experiments which could have gone either way. Yr right RK, Kaplan gave the aussies the opportunity to do what they’ve not had the chance to do in other games and they still blew it. So it’s a good time to take stock. However no dumb arsed changes — the forwards are good in the set piece. Just horrible in committing to the breakdown. What’s up with that? (I have to watch it again). Aussies never commit numbers cause of the defense strategy, but they fail to do so in attack too, meaning they often get counter-rucked. Talking bout changes in the backs in that context is pointless, though I think Turner is a liablility unless the team goes forward. Burgess is a very good player who is picking up crap ball at the breakdown. Elsom was awesome, but man he did some dirty work — no chance to shine. Sharpe worked hard but, ‘duh’ — and Horwill was disappointing. As said elsewhere, I think Brown is a good player against good sides, but gets found out under pressure against very good sides.
They need mongrel runners. Forget defence. That’s all good, they need runners with a high work-rate, Deans’ game plan works for Canterbury cause they attack from the back and on counterwith a flourish …. the Aussies kick from the back and play awful counter. They need to commit to supporting the player at the breakdown.
Methinks, bring back Tuquiri and Tahu — huh? what do you mean that’s not possible?? OK, just lose Howrill for Mumm, bring back Palu for Brown, include Genia for Burgess and (most urgently) anyone for Turner and tell them to run the ball from friggin anywhere and make sure they commit numbers to the breakdown. The score will likely be 44-40, but I’m guessing the Wallabies might actually win that sort of game.
Nick said | August 24th 2009 @ 6:22pm | Report comment
I think people are way to critical of this aus team. they are the 3rd best team in the WORLD!! give them time and this team has some serious potential! I personally believe they are better than the all blacks, but more time and they will prove it. Giteau needs to stay at 10, he was fantastic in the super 14! I think he is the best no 10 in the world, give the team time to gel right and fix there problem areas and u will see how lethal giteau is. 2011 they will be ready.
Hayden said | August 25th 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
Keep it up Nick. Not wanting to be a smart arse, but this Wallaby side is no where near as good as the AB’s. The reason they remain close is that they run further on the smell of an oily rag than any other playing nation. If Aussie self belief and bottle could be well, bottled, it would be lethal. However, name me one Wallaby that is clearly superior to his AB opponent – Elsom ? Smith close, apart from that forget about it. And remember, this is by no mens a vintage AB side. Being a solid S14 player does not a test player make. For Crissakes, Aus can’t even fill their S 14 rosters with Aus players. I for one hope too that Giteau stays at 10, but for different reasons than you I am sure.
Campbell Watts said | August 25th 2009 @ 6:38pm | Report comment
Ha! How can you breath with your head buried so deep in the sand Nick!!!
If the wallabies are better than the AB’s how come they’ve lost 5 IN A ROW to them??? Must just need more time eh? Like a few years till the AB’s are all in their 40′s???
Giteau was great for the Force – but generally in 2nd or 3rd phase when he took it to the line. To me that smacks of great 2nd/5 play – not great 1st/5 – HE AIN’T A PATCH ON CARTER!
Keep dreaming sunshine!!!