Captain Kirk slams weak-minded Wallabies

Roar Pro

By Eljay, 11 Sep 2009 The Crowd is a Roar Pro

Tagged:: Ben Robinson, david kirk, George Smith, Rugby Union, Springboks, Tri Nations, wallabies

Related coverage

I wonder if David Kirk feels he should have waited just another day, week, or year, before putting his opinions about the current Wallabies into print. Is he sitting in a corner now beating himself up about what seems to have been a seriously ill-timed moment?

The former All Black ’87 RWC winning skipper wrote in last Saturday’s The Sunday Star-Times (NZ) before the Wallabies-Springboks Brisbane Test that the Wallabies were ‘weak-minded’ and ‘consistent losers’.

Yes, he did.

Did Captain Kirk wake last Sunday morning wishing he was some place, any place else, except Australia?

I have news: it seems he was.

Come Sunday morning, Captain Kirk was reportedly in deep space aboard his star ship Enterprise again heading at triple the speed of light to another far flung, safer corner of the dangerous Universe.

Scotty: Ye wrote WHUT, Cap’n?
CK: I know, I know! Can we crank this thing up a bit faster, Scotty?

S: I’ll do m’best, sir, but we’re already warping at double maximum speed – but what on earth possessed ye man? The Wallabies played like madmen. They annihilated the Boks! Did y’see what Ben Robinson did to Jon Smit: popped him up like a bar of wet soap, Cap’n!
CK: God, don’t remind me, Montgomery. I’ve made an absolute arse of myself . . .

S: Indeed, y’have, sir. I mean did y’see Polota-Nau cutting those Springboks in half, time and time again until he broke his neck!
CK: I know. And he’ll be playing again in Wellington on Saturday week! They’ve never made them like that before.
Captain Kirk slumps into the commander’s chair. He speaks in a low, hoarse whisper:

CK: I wrote worse, Scotty – worse. I wrote that Deans and his team have four reasons for their ‘ineptitude’.
S: Good God mon, what possessed ye to say that?

CK: Madness, it seems, madness. If only I’d waited until after the game . . .
S: Aye, wisdom in hindsight, stupidity in foresight – I do know what y’mean, Cap’n.

CK: First, I said they have few world-class players. Second, some ordinary players have played extraordinarily badly.
S: Oh, mon! I canna believe y’wrote that! I mean did y’see the way young Genia marshalled his forwards to steamroll the world champion Boks – and the brilliance and speed of O’Connor. And Giteau, and Barnes – and what about Rocky Elsom?

CK: I did, I did! My words are ashes in my mouth, Scotty. Then I wrote third, they have lost their captain and George Smith, fine player that he is, is not the man to rally a weak team to play above themselves. I don’t think anyone else is either, so I don’t suggest a change, but the fact is Australia lack an inspirational captain when they need one.
S: Y’said that aboot George Smith? The man’s a living rugby legend, sir. He could lead a team if he was a one-legged blind mute just by the inspirational way he plays!

CK: Don’t tell me; I know, I know! And, fourthly, I said the team has demonstrated a quite inexplicable inability to stick to a game plan and do the hard work necessary to make the game plan work.
S: Oh mon, it just gets worse . . . sir! Don’t tell me there’s more?

CK: Yes Scotty, sadly there is – but that’s the gist of it …
[The communications console begins flashing and beeping. Scotty takes the headset and listens intently]
S: Hold on, Cap’n – there’s a message coming through from Australia. Goodness, it’s from the Wallabies themselves.
CK: Aah, no!

S: It’s not as bad as you think, sir: ‘Dear Captain Kirk, thanks for writing that column before we played. Mr Deans read it out to use twice – before we went on to the field. It made us as mad as hell. We’ve each got a copy of it to memorise before the game against the All Blacks in Wellington next week.’

CK: Phew, Scotty; I’m off the hook. As they say in klingon: buy’ ngop! Turn her around, Montgomery, we’re going home!
S: But, Cap’n what if the Wallabies thump yeer beloved All Blacks? Ye’ll be blamed for it, y’know.

CK: Hmm, maybe not. If I write a similar column about the ‘inept’ All Blacks for next week and it stirs them up enough to win, I’ll get all the credit for it, yes Scotty? Win, win.
S: Ye’r a genius, Cap’n Kirk, no doot aboot it!

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 (59) | Page 1 of Comments

johny fairplay said | September 11th 2009 @ 12:58am | Report comment

in fairest Aus, one swallow a summer makes indeed.

Reply
- Ben C said | September 11th 2009 @ 10:20am | Report comment
  
  Evidence of the existence of swallows, in the form of bird crap, is generally enough.
  
  Reply
Knives Out said | September 11th 2009 @ 1:43am | Report comment

I think Kirk was spot with most of what he said, and I’m not sure one home victory against a side that Wallaby fans consistently labelled one-dimensional makes his assertions redundant.

Reply
Joseph said | September 11th 2009 @ 3:22am | Report comment

Hey did you hear SA has a new sponsor – Kellogs Cereals. Their Ad agency wants to use the Beast, Bismark & Smit in their new Snap Crackle & Pop commercial!!

Stop it Joe stop it!!!!

Reply
Frank O'Keeffe said | September 11th 2009 @ 4:12am | Report comment

Kirk’s comments were pretty stupid because as Graham Henry says, “You never give the opposition a team talk.”

But there might some truth to it. Australian sport has lacked a magic something in the last few years.

CRICKET:

You can talk about what a great side Steve Waugh had. But that side won a few Tests they could have lost, and they won even more Tests they should have drawn. I respected the fact that they always went for the win. They could have won series 2-0 and drew the last Test (and not risk losing), but they had a confidence to back themselves and win.

Long before that Alan Border got so much out of his Australia side full of greenhorns. Look at the ’87 World Cup squad and tell me, on paper, that’s one of the five most talented sides in that world cup. They weren’t. But they were able to lift themselves. Border gave them that winning mentality.

Ponting has been criticised way too much any time Australia loses, but the Australian cricket side just doesn’t seem capable of lifting themselves above what they’re capable of. In 2005 Shane Warne was the only player who didn’t look out of his depth when the crowds were so intimidatory.

LEAGUE

The World Cup final was a shambles… probably the worst capitulation (sp) I have ever seen. A side that was superior in just about every single position running around like headless chickens. Slater’s pass ranks up there with Campese’s mistake in 1989 as a hideous brain snap. I don’t know what happened to Australia there, but on either side of that Test they murdered New Zealand in the Tests they played.

RUGBY

I remember watching the 2003 World Cup Final and thinking, in the 78th minute, that Australia would win. It reminded me of Eales’ retirement match. They had a line-out in the 78th minute and there’d be a Kefu moment to save Australia. Australia won so many big games back then, could never be counted-out, and were the biggest big-match rugby side in the world. Whether it be all those close Bledisloe Cup games, or the famous South African game when Mortlock won off a penalty (I thought Australia were out of it when SA hit the lead with 4 minutes to go), Australia just won the important games. The Lions Series may have been the ultiumate Wallaby turnaround as well, because the Lions blitzed the Aussies in that first game with one of the most complete performances I’ve ever seen.

I remember talking to a New Zealander at my weekly hit of tennis after one Bledisloe Cup game in 2006, the Brisbane one, and he said he was having flashbacks of all those close games from 2000-2002. He then told me a story about how he literally began to shake, fearful that Australia would somehow sneak in a win. Instead Australia bomed a few chances, one inparticular when Stephen Larkham passed the ball into touch!

The World Cup quarter-final was as bad as it got for Australia. It was the opposite of 2003. I remember Australia had a scrum centrefield with about five minutes to go and I knew nothing would happen. I knew the Aussie props would falter and I had no worries at all that England would win. If ever there was a one-point (or was it two point?) flogging, that was it! I remember the Aussie forwards being so tired from the scrums that when Palu had the ball he became so isolated because no forwards were there to help him. It was that bad.

The Wallabies these days might improve. For most of this year it looks as though they’ve gone backwards, although maybe they can turn it around after that last game and beat New Zealand in New Zealand (which would be HUGE considering they haven’t won there since 2001). But whether they improve or not, I don’t think they’ll recapture that aura of the Eales’ Wallabies..

Rod Kafer was right. That was a special side that could win the tight games. They didn’t lose composure when they fell behind. I sometimes wonder if MacQueen was the reason for that. That side didn’t get flustered. There was a coolness and a belief that they could always win – even when New Zealand were 24-0 ahead!

Right now in Australian sport, Australia has lost its mana – it’s aura. Teams don’t think of them as big match performers anymore. I don’t think there were any New Zealanders who thought the Wallabies could somehow win in Sydney, even when they were attacking their line. 8 years ago a New Zealander who saw Benn Alexander with the ball five metres out would swear Australia was about to steal it.

Reply
- Knives Out said | September 11th 2009 @ 4:41am | Report comment
  
  From an English perspective I’d offer that the 03 side had no ‘mana’ and merely crept into the WC final (one excellent win over NZ aside) totally under the radar, much like England did in 07. If you recall David Humphrey’s missed last minute drop goal in the group stages I would suggest that illustrates luck (if you would accept the use of that word), because Australia were put in a position where they could have been beaten. That is in stark contrast to the 1991 WC Irish match where Lynagh’s faith was unwavering and Australian rugby expected to go and beat Ireland with that final play of the match and they put themselves into a winning position. Therefore they responded to being put into that position by Ireland, as opposed to having to react to an Irish attempt to win the match. I never saw the 03 side as having that ability to dig a win from such a position.
  
  When England beat Australia at home in 2000 with that last minute Dan Luger try English rugby found a belief that they hadn’t had since the early 90s. It was genuinely a very, very big moment. Conversely, the English (or at least mine and SCW’s) perception of Australian rugby diminished. I always saw the Wallabies as dangerous, but eminently beatable, not like the 91 or 99 version. I know that there is a difference between genuine greatness (and those two sides were great) and a temporary resoluteness, but what I am trying to say (in a very convoluted manner) is that I don’t agree with you, Frank. The Wallabies stole the Lions line out because they had found out the Lions calls, and if you remember the close games between England and Australia (at Twickenham) from 01-03 Australia didn’t close any games out despite leading some by comparatively large margins.
  
  Reply
Frank O'Keeffe said | September 11th 2009 @ 5:06am | Report comment

I accept a few of your points, while there are others I don’t.

ACCEPT
* Australia didn’t close some games out in 2000 and 2001 that it could have. The less said about the video ref decision in 2000 the better. England surpassed Australia in 2002 and 2003 and were the best team in the world. I’ll also add that Australia lost some really winnable games in South Africa in 1998 and 2002.

* Beating Australia when they were the best team in the world (1986, 1991-1994, 1999-2001), while very prestigous, doesn’t compare to beating the great New Zealand sides (1987-1989, 1995-1997, 2005-2007). And while Australia has had some great sides, none of them have ever dominated like great New Zealand sides. There’s always been annoying losses for the Wallabies poping up here and there.

DISAGREE

* The first thing you have to realise about the 2003 side was that it wasn’t a great Wallaby side, but they were big match performers. My main point is that Australia could usually lift themselves and win important games. Australia slowly diminished after 2001, and really the loss to England in 2001 was the passing of the guard. Australia’s ‘mana’ came from winning games they shouldn’t have won ‘on form’. Australia were able to retain the Bledisloe in 2002 thanks to a Matt Burke penalty (the last kick of the game), but it was clear Australia weren’t the same. Lots of players had either retired or were injured too.

* Australia beating New Zealand in the 2003 World Cup was HUGE!!! ABSOLUTELY MAMMOTH! I remember a few months before there was a famous headline that went around the world from an Australian newspaper, “We can’t win the World Cup’. Australia lost to New Zealand that year when New Zealand posted 50 points on the Wallabies in one game – an embarrassing moment. But that game was huge. Gregan was huge. The Wallaby forwards played better than they had in a long time. On form Australia had no right to win that game, but they played above themselves on the big stage.

* I don’t think any English would admit it, but the World Cup final was huge too by the Wallabies. England were the better side, and a few of the reffing decisions incorrectly went Australia’s way, but Australia were far more composed at some important points, while handling errors let England down.

* You can disagree, but Martin Johnson himself has said Australia were a side you could never count out because they had a way of lifting themselves for big games. I don’t think they have that right now – the ability to lift when they need to – which perhaps is condusive of a lack of strong leadership.

Reply
- Knives Out said | September 11th 2009 @ 5:25am | Report comment
  
  I agree with the majority of what you say but I still don’t think the side of 02-03 won enough ‘big’ games simply because they don’t have anything to show for it apart from two 3N silver medals and a WC silver medal. I do agree with Johnson’s comment and the closeness of some of the games at Twickenham consolidate that suggestion, but surely the occasional big win like NZ in 03 is an aberration more than an Australian big game stoicism?
  
  Reply
  - Frank O'Keeffe said | September 11th 2009 @ 5:53am | Report comment
    
    Hmm, there were a few big moments for the Wallabies from 2002-2003.
    
    * Matt Burke retaining the Bledisloe with his penalty kick in 2002. There’s a long story about that kick which I won’t bore you with, except I’ll say that Burke had plenty of reasons to doubt he’d kick that.
    * Australia losing the Bledisloe at Eden Park… they’d given away 50+ points the week before, and it was only being held-up over the try line that saved them. You could argue they should have won if they were big match performers, but to me they clearly were above themselves.
    * The World Cup semi. Nobody picked them. Campo was bashing them. The press were mocking them. The Wallabies forwards were tremendous.
    * The World Cup final. Watch it again a few days ago, it’s just a fantastic big match performance against a side that was better in just about every department. Gregan did tremendously well I thought.
    
    Reply
Frank O'Keeffe said | September 11th 2009 @ 5:22am | Report comment

As for the Lions…

When I talk about it being a huge performance by Australia I mean they literally couldn’t have come back from a further deficit. I wasn’t just referring to Harrison’s grab, I was referring to being one a half Tests down and not looking close to winning, to everything changing instantly with Roff’s intercept. The change in form was stunning.

But if you want to talk about Harrison’s jump, his teammates were telling him to stay on the floor, while Harrison was saying he wanted to go into the air. So a decision had to be made there. Had Johnson grabbed that the Lions would have driven over and won, just like they drove over in the second Test. Regardless of whether Harrison knew the call, the Lions execution was poor, while the timing of Harrison’s jump was a thing of beauty. Even knowing the call it was a risk because Johnson was an easy target at two, and a very good jumper.

Reply
- Knives Out said | September 11th 2009 @ 5:30am | Report comment
  
  I don’t know how I feel about that Lions series. Australia did fantastically well to win that series, but for me the loss of Richard Hill lost the Lions the series as opposed to Australia grinding out something they didn’t deserve. I see that more as a series handed over as opposed to a series lost because the Lions handed them the game within a context and Australia took it ergo Australia deserved to win. The reason I say that is not out of any lingering bitterness but the fact that in the 2nd test Graham Henry changed the tactics at half time when Quinnell’s driving play had been massively effective, the Lions lost Hill and Australia had the Lions line out codes. The problem to my suggestion is that you can only beat what is in front of you, I suppose. I can’t really articulate what I’m thinking, so it’s probably best to ignore me. If a game is handed to you on a plate what does the winning of the game say about you – that you can grind out big games, or that you can manipulate glaringly obvious weaknesses? Perhaps that’s what I mean. Perhaps not. I’m not sure myself.
  
  Reply
  - Frank O'Keeffe said | September 11th 2009 @ 5:45am | Report comment
    
    You’re right when you say we’ll never know what happened if Richard Hill kept on playing.
    
    I think there were three reasons why Australia on that second Test personally.
    
    1. JOE ROFF! You might want to make an argument that Joe Roff was handed a try, rather than putting on a big match performance.But Roff, like de Villiers, was an intercept king. I think the fact he read the situation so well led to that try. Even if it didn’t, he scored a second try a few minutes later with a pretty classy finish (sliding between two players). If Australia were a team that could lift for a big match, then Roff was the one Wallaby who often did it.
    
    2. The front row stood up. In the first Test the Lions murdered the Wallaby scrum. It badly effected Australia because the Wallabies liked to use the carrying of Finnegan and Kefu, and instead those guys were having to clean-up bad ball. More than the Roff intercept, the key point in the second test was when the Wallabies spoiled a Lions scrum, got the ball, the ball went to Roff and he got his second try.
    
    3. The backrow combined with Gregan. Gregan came to life in the second half of that second Test after Howley outplayed him so badly before that. My favourite try of the second test came when Gregan started marshalling his forwards. I remember Kefu taking the ball over the gain line, Smith retaining possession, Gregan there like a flash, offloading to Finnegan, who took a few people with him (he usually did), and then offloaded to Matt Burke for the try. Beautiful work.
    
    I don’t know, to me it’s too much to say that such a large deficit could have been prevented by Hill. Australia thrashed the Lions in that second half. One man can only do so much. There were so many likeable aspects of the Wallabies play, and it’s not like Hill would have prevented that Roff intercept, or that he’d make much of a difference to the scrum that got spoiled.
    
    I did think Nathan Grey’s challenge on him was a pretty pathetic and a cowardly act.
    
    You could possibly argue that the Lions would have won the last Test with Hill, but then you have to ask yourself whether the Wallabies would have won by more if they had Stephen Larkham. It’s often forgotten that Larkham was injured after numerous late charged by Scott Quinell. But then you could counter that by saying Larkham was very ordinary in that first test. But then who’s to say Hill would have played as well? The permutations can be endless you know.
    
    By the way I’m not suggestion the Lions couldn’t have won that series. In my view they should have won that series because they had a better squad, which I guess goes back to my whole ‘Australia could lift themselves when need be.’
    
    Reply
    - Knives Out said | September 11th 2009 @ 5:47am | Report comment
      
      I’m at sixes and sevens tonight, Frank. Thanks for the lengthy response but I simply can’t think straight and so wouldn’t want to waste your time with something incoherent like I’ve knocked out above.
      
      Reply
      - Frank O'Keeffe said | September 11th 2009 @ 5:53am | Report comment
        
        No worries mate.
        
        Reply
  - sheek said | September 11th 2009 @ 11:42am | Report comment
    
    Are you guys talking about the 2001 series?
    
    How the Wallabies won that series defies belief. Richard Hill & Robert Howley missing from the 3rd test affected the Lions. But they could/should still have won.
    
    Justin Harrison pinching that last minute lineout ball out of Martin Johnson’s hands, probably illustrates that Johnson is just short of truly, truly great. I couldn’t imagine Eales or Matfield losing the ball in a similar instance.
    
    Had Johnson won that ball only metres out from the Wallabies line, I’m sure they would have scored with the rolling maul. With the conversion, it would’ve been 30-29 to the Lions.
    
    Could’ve….. should’ve….. would’ve….. I guess we’ll never know for sure!
    
    Reply
    - Knives Out said | September 11th 2009 @ 9:24pm | Report comment
      
      ‘Justin Harrison pinching that last minute lineout ball out of Martin Johnson’s hands, probably illustrates that Johnson is just short of truly, truly great. I couldn’t imagine Eales or Matfield losing the ball in a similar instance.’
      
      Firstly, I don’t think you can define greatness by one facet of the game, and secondly Scott Johnson has publicly admitted that the Wallabies knew the Lions codes.
      
      Reply
Jerry said | September 11th 2009 @ 6:23am | Report comment

Eljay – I know the articles partly in jest, but you’re annointing some of the Wallabies as great based on one match.

Smith is a great leader? Really? What’s his record as captain then? He’s a great player, but has been a bit lacking as captain generally. And Genia and Pocock are young, but they’ve really only had one good match at test level. Polota-Nau is pretty inconsistent too.

Reply
Hammer said | September 11th 2009 @ 8:29am | Report comment

Jjohny fairplay is spot on …

What’s a load of trash this is …. Kirk summed it up pretty well – and rubbish like this really just reinforces his views …

Reply
- Eljay said | September 11th 2009 @ 8:36am | Report comment
  
  Hammer, for your own good go outside and laugh at the clouds – please.
  
  Reply
katzilla said | September 11th 2009 @ 9:13am | Report comment

You guys realise that Captain Kirk took Australian Citizenship last year right?
Eljay – Hes a turncoat like you and his words were meant to inspire, not redicule. And lo and behold they did.

Reply
- katzilla said | September 11th 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
  
  I take the Turncoat comment back, Captain Kirk did well for our country and i’m sure in his heart he still backs black.
  Australia day this year btw
  
  Reply
  - Eljay said | September 11th 2009 @ 9:24am | Report comment
    
    Um, it took a while Katzilla, but thankfully you finally got the point. Incidentally, I support NZ in league, cricket, netball and everything else including tiddlylinks – except rugby. And if you missed yesterday’s Eljay column and the threads you will see that I haven’t forsworn my country by taking Oz citizenship. I do plan to go home and die there, if permitted! Turncoat indeed.
    
    Reply
sheek said | September 11th 2009 @ 9:42am | Report comment

I agree with the overall thrust of David Kirk’s comments, which don’t change because the Wallabies won. Let’s not forget that the Wallabies 3N record this year stands at 1-4.

I was a bit embarrassed by the way some Aussies carried on after the last win. Profound relief is one thing. But some were carrying on as if we had already won the next WC! Talk about short memories.

Historically, the Wallas are inclined to bounce up & down like a yo-yo. Some consistency would be appreciated. If during next year’s 3N, our record stands at 4-1, then I’ll believe progress has truly been made.

Reply

More Comments »

Have Your Say

Explore:: Ben Robinson, david kirk, George Smith, Rugby Union, Springboks, Tri Nations, wallabies

Captain Kirk slams weak-minded Wallabies

Related coverage

Get a daily rugby union email

The Crowd Says (59) | Page 1 of Comments

Have Your Say

Rugby Union articles