Have the Wallabies hit rock bottom?
By ozxile, 30 Aug 2009 ozxile is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- robbie deans, Rugby Union, Springboks, Tri Nations, wallabies
Related coverage
In the first half hour of last night’s match, the Wallabies looked like they were playing a team that they knew nothing about. There was palpable sense of aimlessness bordering on confusion and a lack of resolve.
While not blessed with enormous talent and experience, I think that this Wallaby team could win if they just believed it. However, the extending string of losses has negatively affected attitudes, individually and collectively. The impact of these losses on this apparently fragile set of psyches is such they appear not to trust themselves, their teammates, the team (actually the composition of the team), the coaches or the game plan – assuming they had one.
To use a mountain climbing metaphor, it’s as if they know in advance that that people and equipment will fail – and the suspense of what and when is killing them.
What did we learn from this game?
Surely Burgess must go – off the bench completely (unless he shaves his head.) He can catch, tackle, kick, run with the ball, but he is a hopelessly slow-witted and poorly skilled scrum-half. His dithering and routinely anemic passing gifted the Bok defense with extra time to rush and time to regroup.
For the Wallabies, his slowness took the urgency out of regrouping and recycling and slowed everything down. The pace went up noticeably when Genia replaced him.
Genia displays a sense of urgency and real purpose – thinks quickly and passes crisply (mostly.) Genia isn’t perfect. However, at this point Genia’s mistakes can be excused as lack of experience and match time. By contrast Burgess has had plenty of match time. His specific mistakes come in addition to his overall drag on the pace of the game.
Giteau is a 12. It took Cooper a matter of minutes and 2-3 touches of the ball to show just how poorly Giteau is doing at 10 – and how much better he can do if relieved of the primary playmaker burden. It must be Barnes when he is fit and anyone but Giteau at 10 until that time. Cooper will do. The delay in making this decision has cost the Wallabies dearly in many ways.
What else?
Cross and Turner (late try notwithstanding) did not impress. Brown despite not being able to catch, was better but not by much – Pocock might be given a run at 8. Chisholm, straight back into the action easily did enough to keep his spot – he and Elsom did a very credible job at the lineouts until the inane long throws started. Horwill worked hard but had no obvious impact. Where is Kimlin?
How to get back the confidence?
First of all do something different. The same lame excuses about the same losing combination is rubbish. A good start will be to actually the team. It is one thing to look for stability in a lineup, entirely another to settle on a losing lineup and persist with it despite the evidence that it is never going to make it. At some point (many games back) it was becoming obvious that this wasn’t going to be the team to win now, let alone in 2011.
The supporters didn’t believe it then. Now it is so obvious that the players don’t believe it either. They know that the team that started yesterday will lose again next week.
So Robbie, for the sake of Australian rugby don’t start the same team!
Given what you’ve got my lineup would be:
1. Robinson
2. P-Nau
3. Alexander
4. Chisholm
5. Kimlin
6. Elsom (C)
7. Smith
8. Hodgson
9. Genia
10. Barnes/Cooper
11. Hynes
12. Giteau
13. AAC
14. O’Connor
15. Beale
16. Moore
17. Cowan
18. Horwill
19. Pocock
20. Shepard (get someone with a presence – injured?)
21. Cooper/Turner
22. Valentine (seriously – not Burgess)
The next real change to make is to find a captain that can lead. Someone who has no baggage as a losing captain.
Elsom can do it. He will have new gloves next week and will be ready.
Smith cannot lead or carry this team. Furthermore he really doesn’t appear to want to.
Ask him Robbie, would he rather play with a team that has hope and perhaps wins or be captain of a team that knows that nothing has changed – including the expected scoreline?
The time has come Robbie. Let’s move on. We want a real reason to watch next week.
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)
- Will Cooper and Mitchell be back in time for Wallaby selection? (156)
- Who will be in the Wallabies’ backrow? (155)
- ALAN JONES: We have the players, it’s the coaches that are to blame (153)
- CAMPO: Will Deans change the style of the Wallabies play? (128)
- Tahs out. Brumbies win ugly. And Quade’s back! (124)
- Irish coaches looking to head Western Force (1)
- Dull Super Rugby coaches equal dull rugby (1)
- Coaching, not lack of depth, the issue for Australian rugby (6)
- Road to the 2015 World Cup starts in June (18)
- Six lessons Robbie Deans must learn (Part 2) (75)
- Who will be the Wallabies’ centres? (110)
- Are Roarers picking the Wallabies for the wrong reasons? (21)
- Explore:
- robbie deans, Rugby Union, Springboks, Tri Nations, wallabies

August 30th 2009 @ 8:50am
bruski said | August 30th 2009 @ 8:50am | Report comment
Good write up..What more is there to say!
August 30th 2009 @ 10:38am
Viscount Crouchback said | August 30th 2009 @ 10:38am | Report comment
This Wallaby team is soft. The Australian rugger chaps lack the innate hardness of the Afrikaner, the innate stoicism of the farming New Zealander, or the innate stubbornness of the English yeoman. There is a flaccidity to the Wallabies that is quite ghastly to behold for those of us used to watching (and sometimes appreciating) the flint-eyed ruthlessness of the Baggy Greens.
I believe Australians find rugger so difficult because it permits less room for bluff. Rugger is like boxing: all the talk and posturing in the world is useless because you cannot run away from the physical confrontation. The larrikin strut that is so effective in non-contact sports (notably cricket) is completely redundant in rugger. It is a game that favours quiet men of action, not mouthy non-entities who boast to the faces of the All Blacks (see Greg Growden’s report on Dunning and Tuqiri).
August 30th 2009 @ 11:16am
An Aussie 'Rugger' Chap said | August 30th 2009 @ 11:16am | Report comment
That must be why we’re so rubbish at Rugby League… because it’s just not a contact sport… Or why our Football Team is considered one of the most physical sides in the world game…
I belive we find ‘rugger’ so difficult because no one of talent plays the sport in this country…
Having said that I do like the reference to the English yeoman. Though I believe a yeoman was a middle-class sought who was a land owner of limited stature, whilst Rugby Union is the pinnicle sport of the aristocarcy… so slightly negates that. Also, do many Maori’s farm?
August 30th 2009 @ 1:21pm
Viscount Crouchback said | August 30th 2009 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
How many nations play rugby league seriously, old fruit?
August 30th 2009 @ 5:04pm
Michael Lee said | August 30th 2009 @ 5:04pm | Report comment
perceptive and accurate dissertation old fruit
August 30th 2009 @ 5:08pm
Michael Lee said | August 30th 2009 @ 5:08pm | Report comment
read it again, and love this article, love the total accuracy amongst the Bunteresque literacy
August 30th 2009 @ 8:14pm
craigb said | August 30th 2009 @ 8:14pm | Report comment
without doubt one of the most ridiculous and stupid posts ever! Tell Simon Poidevin, Tommy Lawton, Owen Finegan, Justin Harrison etc etc etc that they are soft.
August 30th 2009 @ 8:50pm
Knives Out said | August 30th 2009 @ 8:50pm | Report comment
I’d tell Justin Harrison he was soft. He was and is soft. Anyway, I think Viscount’s point is that there is a general lack of hardness (I’m not saying that I necessarily agree), and thus the names you mention are exceptions to the rule.
P.S. Lawton was a big baby: “I don’t want to go into work with my brains scrambled on a Monday morning..”
August 30th 2009 @ 9:46pm
craigb said | August 30th 2009 @ 9:46pm | Report comment
OK- you tell him that.. in fact tell that to fitzpatrick you didn’t seem to have the same opinion
August 30th 2009 @ 9:58pm
Knives Out said | August 30th 2009 @ 9:58pm | Report comment
Tell who what? I would tell Harrison but he ran away from England in disgrace (having also been knocked completely spark out by a 5’9 flanker), so unless I travel to Australia…
I would tell Lawton (again if I were to travel to Australia), but then I’m sure he knows that a lot of people know he’s a blow hard. He’s the typical stereotypical hard man Australian that VC refers to, I’m afraid.
August 30th 2009 @ 10:46am
Glenn Condell said | August 30th 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment
Well said. I mostly agree.
My team (if everyone is available):
O’Connor
Mitchell
AAC
GIteau
Turner
Barnes
Genia
Palu
Smith
Elsom
Horwill
Chisholm
Alexander
Moore
Robinson
Shepherd
Cooper
Lucas
Hodgson
Kimlin
P-Nau
Cowan
August 30th 2009 @ 2:11pm
sheek said | August 30th 2009 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
I offer another view why we struggle to be competitive at rugby union. Our player base is too narrow, obviously.
Also, more often than not, rugby union gets the 4th best player available in each case. It’s like kids picking teams in the playground.
AFL goes first, followed by probably NRL, then soccer, then rugby union. But rugby union only gets to pick its first after the other 3 have each had their first 5 picks!
Not only does rugby union lack the best athletic stock, we’re also down on nous, which is related to history of the sport. 100 years after the rugby league split, & we continue to play with appalling naivety & lack of understanding of the fundamentals of rugby union.
And reading today’s post-mortems in various threads, serious analysis is lacking. A lot of the ‘fixit’ ideas are incredibly shallow, lacking any deep thought or understanding of the sport. And I throw myself in the same basket as everyone else.
August 30th 2009 @ 9:02pm
fred said | August 30th 2009 @ 9:02pm | Report comment
sheek logically the more depth the greater resources but what do you attribute better past performances to when only qld and nsw were in the catchment ;better discipline ,motivation ,coaching?
August 30th 2009 @ 9:30pm
sheek said | August 30th 2009 @ 9:30pm | Report comment
Fred,
Thankyou for the question. To begin with, we had only isolated national success until about the mid-70s. We beat the ABs in best of 2 or 3 tests in 1922, 29, 34 & 49, then had to wait until 1980. We won 3 of 5 tests in the northern hemisphere in 1927/28 & 1947/48, but our only grand slam was in 1984. Our only series win over the Boks before 1993, was in 1965.
For a very long time, Queensland didn’t carry their weight. But when they became strong in the 1970s, this helped lift the standard of the Wallabies.
Yes, I think better coaching might have been the answer, especially from the 1970s onwards. Ironically, because coaches were amateur, & didn’t rely on politics, lobbying & favours for their position & influence (generally speaking), & income, that they went about their job much more sucessfully, passing on their knowledge.
The whole point about developing the player base & quality experience through a national comp, isn’t about what happens to you when the national team is on top. It’s about how quickly you recover when you lose a core of experienced & talented players to retirement.
Compare Australian rugby with NZ & SA rugby. We lost Horan, Little & Wilson in 2000, & Eales in 2001. Almost everyone agrees we overachieved in reaching the final of the WC in 2003. We’ve been in an increasing rut now for 6 years.
Looking at NZ & SA rugby, it’s very rare for their national team to be in a rut for more than 2 years. Occasionally, 3 years at the most. But often you wouldn’t know, because they usually beat everyone else bar each other.
Their powerful domestic structures ensure that they rebound very quickly, unleashing the next generation of stars into the national team.
August 30th 2009 @ 10:24pm
Bonza said | August 30th 2009 @ 10:24pm | Report comment
If we over achieved in 2003 then we were already on the slide when JON was running the show back then. Flowers came in and tried different things including a national comp which might have borne fruit. This was promptly given the boot by JON on his return and we have pretty much resumed activties as they were structurally around 2003. So 6 or 7 years later (QLD has been rubbish this whole time) nothing has significantly changed except the Force and soon to be Rebels. Our talent has disipated but overall quality and depth has gone backwards. Who takes responsibility for the big picture in Australian Rugby. We can keep blaming Eddie or Flowers but there has been ample time to make changes yet it all seems to be the same. When we only had two provinces we had a concentration of players and this might have bought out the best in the individuals
August 30th 2009 @ 4:48pm
Michael Lee said | August 30th 2009 @ 4:48pm | Report comment
Hey Oz, didn’t read a mention of how good the Boks were. Your last prediction was that they wouldn’t win another match???????? compare your articles “are the Springboks that great with this one.” Not toooooo accurate, open the other eye.
August 30th 2009 @ 4:51pm
Michael Lee said | August 30th 2009 @ 4:51pm | Report comment
Sorry Sheek, though I do agree, this weeks excuse is, wait for it, WE DON’T HAVE THE CATTLE in analytical terms our player base is too narrow LOL
August 30th 2009 @ 9:14pm
sheek said | August 30th 2009 @ 9:14pm | Report comment
Michael Lee,
The trials & tribulations of SA rugby are not my concern, but the trials & tribulations of Australian rugby are. Come onto an Aussie blog site, & naturally we’re going to discuss OUR team, OUR concerns.
No-one has said the Boks didn’t deserve to win, & in fact, the praise has been generous. But obviously, we’re concerned with the performance of our team. So visit our site & understand it on those terms.
August 30th 2009 @ 5:00pm
Michael Lee said | August 30th 2009 @ 5:00pm | Report comment
the wallabies were outgunned , outmuscled, and outskilled by a cohesive unit that knew exactly how to play every aspect of what came their way. The Wallabies were pressured and hounded into mistakes. Only when the foot came off the gas ie. the pressure, were they ALLOWED back in. Make no mistake these Wallabies have skill, unfortunately that is only One aspect of the game
August 30th 2009 @ 8:19pm
craigb said | August 30th 2009 @ 8:19pm | Report comment
Micheal why’ll I agree – I don’t see saying ‘we don’t have the cattle’ IE we are just not good enough at the moment, is any kind of excuse, its more a statement of fact. BTW the way being a cock about it doesn’t help your cause either. Maybe the Wallabies can get some armbands and whinge that its just not fair and chuck all the toys out the pram until things go our way.
There is no way the Boks allowed anything – the Wallabies outplayed played them in patches but were no where near good enough over the journey.
August 31st 2009 @ 3:26am
Michael Lee said | August 31st 2009 @ 3:26am | Report comment
they do it anyway but without the armbands
August 30th 2009 @ 8:33pm
Jack said | August 30th 2009 @ 8:33pm | Report comment
Consistant losses by the team you follow are always hard to take, (1949 still comes up in our group) so the Wallabies, whom to my mind are a pretty average squad this season, no matter whom they select will cop a fair bit of stick. I’m like most of my mates and believe the ABs would have lost their last test against the Wallabies if Barnes had been on the paddock to drop a goal in the final minute.
However with regard to the present ‘Boks I do think they are head and shoulders better than the other two squads.
At the end of last season (when the ‘Boks finished last in the TN) I thought their forward pack could go on to be world class and this season, PdV and his assistants have added some necessary spark and hunger to the muscle and kicking skills in the backline, which still has a way to go to equal their outstanding forward pack. Make no mistake, it will take a team with an aggressive and cohesive forward pack with some size to beat this season’s ‘Boks. Not likely anytime soon to my mind by either OZ or the ABs whose skill set has been so poor against the ‘Boks simple and effective game plan.
Re Aussie Rugger chap’s question, Do many Maori farm? The answer is yes, but of course not present day professional rugby players. Historically most Maori were rural, many owned and worked in farming, were shearers and bushmen. (lumberjacks and logging) My dad was a bushman (a tough job in all weather) and his boss and good mate was a Maori, who was the best and most skillful bushman in the area. Over the years our area has had visits from Australian (especially Tasmania) axemen who came to compete in local chopping events. Many Maori have been selected in the NZ Axemen’s chopping team which competes against the OZ team in Sydney at the Royal Show for the Halstrom Cup.
In more recent years the drift to the cities has been the norm for both working and middle class young Maori and Pakeha, with many kids also leaving the farm to get educated at the various city colleges and universities.
The Heartland competition (amateur) is the NZRU competition which features squads from the the smaller provinces and games are played in smaller rural towns thru-out the country and any likely looking players from this competition will move on to one of the semi-pro NPC provinces (based in their largest city/town). The NPC is very important to NZ rugby, it is from here the better players get a pro contract to join one of the 5 Super 14 squads. Top Maori ABs from the past you may remember, Zinzan and Robin Brooke and their brothers were country boys.
Cheers,
Jack
August 30th 2009 @ 8:43pm
JoRobb said | August 30th 2009 @ 8:43pm | Report comment
Would be better for both the Saffas and the Kiwis if the Australians were dropped from the Tri Nations, and Argentina brought in to replace them.
August 30th 2009 @ 9:37pm
sheek said | August 30th 2009 @ 9:37pm | Report comment
JoRobb,
Obviously you’re fishing for a bite. If you seriously believed your own comment, then you must be a dope.
Australia might be struggling, but we’re still the 3rd best rugby union nation on the planet. And the rugby world would be a much, much, much, much poorer community without us.