By Spiro Zavos
October 27th 2009 @ 2:17am
Related coverage
1984 Grand Slam will be hard for Wallabies to match
1984 Grand Slam Wallabies Mark Ella, Steve Williams, current coach Robbie Deans, Alan Jones, Roger Gould, Simon Poidevin and Andrew Slack arrive at the John Eales Medal Awards in Sydney, Thursday, Oct. 22, 2009. AAP Image/Sergio Dionisio
The voting outcome of the 2009 John Eales Medal, voted for by the players, and for the Australia’s Choice Wallaby of the Year award, voted for by the public online, provides an insight into the mentality and playing strength of the Wallabies as they begin their Spring Tour.
Matt Giteau was the winner of the John Eales Medal. And Benn Robinson was Australia’s Choice.
If I had to decide on the merits of the two winners, I’d vote for Robinson.
The tubby prop, who is quick and powerful around the field with the ball and strong in the tackle, is the only current Wallaby who would be seriously considered for a World XV position.
In my opinion, Giteau too often flatters to deceive.
He does not take control in the important matches the way, say, Dan Carter does and Stephen Larkham used to do. Giteau ‘won’ a Test against England a few years ago with a phenomenal display, but this is the only crunch Test where he has totally dominated and led the Wallabies to a victory.
The voting tallies for the John Eales medal, which took in the 2008 Spring Tour and all the subsequent Tests up to the end of the 2009 Tri-Nations, also make for sobering reading.
Matt Giteau 190 votes
Nathan Sharpe 162 votes
George Smith 161 votes
Benn Robinson 132 votes
Adam Ashley-Cooper 106
The first point to make is that Robinson and Ashley-Cooper deserved far more points than they received. I believe they should have been comfortably first and second in the tallies.
How could Nathan Sharpe, who was dropped at one stage, garner the points tally he did, for instance?
The points allocation demonstrates to me where the players believed their leaders were. The leaders were three veterans who, in the case of Sharpe (certainly), Smith and Giteau (possibly) have seen their best days. The points were allocated to these leaders were more in line with their status within the group than for their actual performances on the field.
And it is interesting to note that these top three players, according to the players themselves, have had their positions under review by Robbie Deans.
Clearly, Deans does not see the top three (Sharpe is currently out injured) in the same light as their team-mates.
For what it is worth, I believe that Deans is right and the Wallaby squad wrong on these picks.
Attending the John Eales medal dinner as special guests were some members of the fabled 1984 Grand Slam Wallabies: the skipper Andrew Slack, David Campese, Mark Ella, Simon Poidevin, Nick Farr-Jones, Steve Williams, Roger Gould and the coach Alan Jones.
The thought came to me as these players were being introduced that not one of the current players, though possibly Benn Robinson, would have been selected for the run-on squad in 1984:
Roger Gould, Brendan Moon, Andrew Slack, David Campese, Michael Lynagh, Mark Ella, Nick Farr-Jones: Steve Tuynman, Simon Poidevin, Steve Cutler, Steve Williams, David Codey, Andy McIntyre, Tommy Lawton, Enrique Rodriquez.
I would go so far as to say that this might be the greatest Wallaby side of them all.
They had a tremendous pack that achieved the famous push-over try against Wales at Cardiff, one of the most humiliating incidents in Welsh rugby history.
Mark Ella scored a try in all four Grand Slam victories, the first and only player to have this. The backline had thrust, speed, skill and the genius of Campese, rugby’s greatest ever broken field runner.
In achieving their Grand Slam, the Wallabies conceded only one try, scored by Wales towards the end of a Test in which they were being overwhelmed. This ‘one-try only’ mark was also achieved by the 1999 Rugby World Cup winning Wallabies (a side of comparable all-round strength and brilliance), who also gave away a try in a match they were winning comfortably against the United States.
The 2009 Wallabies do not compare, right now, with their 1984 Grand Slam counterparts.
If they achieve a Grand Slam it will be, in a sense, a greater triumph because the team, on paper but hopefully not on the field, does not look like a team of world-beaters.
There is a nice historical irony in all of this, however.
The 1984 Wallabies set off on their Grand Slam tour after losing the Bledisloe Cup series to the All Blacks, two Tests to one. The Wallabies won the first Test and lost the next two when the All Blacks fullback kicked 5 penalty goals in each of the Tests.
And the fullback’s name?
Robbie Deans, who is now the coach of a Wallabies side beaten in the Bledisloe Cup series that is looking for glory with a second Grand Slam truimph for Australian rugby.
As Alan Jones likes to say about what has happened in the past: “The dogs are barking but the caravan moves on.”
Super 14 Tipping now live on The Roar. Join now.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(58)
Frank O'Keeffe said | October 27th 2009 @ 3:40am | Report comment
Good article Spiro.
Australia has performed poorly this year, but as the old saying goes ‘when a door shuts a window opens’. Would Australia have won the 1984 Grand Slam if they hadn’t tasted the bitter feeling of losing a series against New Zealand they should have won 3-0? Some Grand Slam Wallabies have said when they played Scotland in 1984 they reminded themselves not to be complacent, following what happened earlier on that year.
Would the 1991 World Cup Champions have succeeded if the Wallaby forwards hadn’t taken a beating against the Lions in 1989? Maybe if the Wallabies won that series Bob Dwyer wouldn’t have felt compelled to find some new talent.
There are some who’ve theorised that the All Blacks became complacent following the 6-3 victory in Auckland in 1991. Dwyer himself said in his first autobiography that he felt it made the Wallabies hungrier and the All Blacks perhaps a little over-confident.
I could go on and on… I suppose the question for these Wallabies is: how can they turn so many negatives into a positive on this tour?
I don’t expect Australia to win the Grand Slam this year. While England and Wales were patchy this year, Australia hasn’t produced a performance as impressive as England’s against France, or played at such a competitive level as Wales did against France in the best game of the year. For all the talk about the Southern Hemisphere being generally more dominant, I have to say I was more impressed by the best performances in the Six Nations this year. That was a better tournament than this year’s tri nations, even if the England/Ireland game was the worst of the year BY FAR!
Anyway, it’s conceivable that Australia would slip-up for one or two games. Australia hasn’t had the best time at Millenium Stadium this decade, and I think that’s the likely Test Australia will lose.
—-
I love the 1984 Wallabies and it’s somewhat sad that these days the Grand Slam perhaps doesn’t have the same gloss as it once did. New Zealand achieved it last year without playing all that well by their high standards. The New Zealand public didn’t seem to care too much about the Grand Slam either, as their TV ratings would suggest. It’s sad because earlier this decade when the All Blacks were gunning for their second ever Grand Slam, there was HUGE interest in it – probably because New Zealand had only won it once before in 1978 (and in controversial circumstances). But in the span of a few years, people have stopped caring about the Grand Slam – at least in New Zealand.
Considering how poorly the Wallabies have played though, a Grand Slam would be a huge galvanising achievement for the side. David Campese recently said it would be good if the team had more midweek matches, like the old rugby sides used to play, to really give the side the best UK experience possible. Sadly that can’t happen these days. Although maybe Australia can beat Cardiff this year – something even the ‘84 side couldn’t achieve.
Bill McLaren once said that of all the touring sides that have been to the UK he’s seen since seeing the Springboks of the early 50s, the 1984 Grand Slam Wallabies were the best. I don’t know how true that is, but I think they could easily stand out as the most memorable because of the talent in the backs. That side played some incredibly attractive rugby and I think their legacy is that they showed that running rugby can be winning rugby. I don’t know if they would have been better than the All Blacks of the late 60s, but they probably played a more entertaining, attractive style.
Whether or not these Wallabies win the Grand Slam, I doubt they’ll do it will the same skill or attractiveness of the 1984 Wallabies. I think in the end, it was the entertainment value the ‘84 side provided that sets them apart from all other sides that I’ve seen.
Frank O'Keeffe said | October 27th 2009 @ 3:49am | Report comment
Just a tiny extra note:
I agree fully that Ashley-Cooper should have been further-up in the John Eales medal. I’ve been critical of him in the past, mainly because I’m an admirer of Ryan Cross. But Ashley-Cooper was an honest battler this year, a gutsy player, and for all the flash of players like Giteau, O’Connor, Elsom etc, he performed more consistently than all of them (though admittedly Elsom didn’t get much of a chance).
Cutter said | October 27th 2009 @ 5:15am | Report comment
Spiro – Nathan Sharpe wasn’t dropped during the voting period. He was dropped at the end of the last voting period. His performances on the end of season tour last year were outstanding and that is where he generated many of his votes. Although Ben Robinson and AAC have been very good this domestic test season, they were not as prominent during the end of year tour. AAC was playing fullback in every game at that point which was lamented widely. Matt Giteau has been consistent throughout the year up until the Tri-Nations where he performed poorly. I agree that Robinson and AAC have been the standout performers this domestic season, particularly in the latter half. However, the points allocated at the end of last year against Italy, for example, count just as much as the points against the All Blacks in Wellington.
In comparing the 1984 side against the current side we encounter all the problems of comparing different eras. Notwithstanding that, for mine, George Smith is Australia’s greatest openside flanker, certainly its greatest from the modern era (post early 80s). His form at no. 8 in the last test was not vintage, but nor would Simon Poidevins have been had he been played at no. 8 against the All Blacks. Smith has been one of the Wallabies’ most consistent performers this season and would be have pushed Poido out of the team.
I dont disagree that no other of the current Wallabies would make the starting line up of the Grand Slam team.
Greg Russell said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:21am | Report comment
Further to the first paragraph (which is spot on), I would just like to remind people that Sharpe missed the last three tests of the voting period (i.e., Australia’s last 3 tests of the 2009 Trinations). Had he played in these tests and polled at the same rate as in the rest of the voting period, he would have headed the vote tally.
I think it’s an extraordinarily dangerous and arrogant game to start playing to suggest that players don’t have any real idea about who the best players on the field are.
Jecker said | October 27th 2009 @ 7:11am | Report comment
SPIRO – I’d love to see some of the people who were around for the ‘84 slammers compare player for player with the 2009 starters.
If we award 5 points for all the NFJ starters then, by your post, Robinson get a 5. For my money, the only other 2009 player who gets close is George Smith with a 4 to Poido’s 5. (Poido was a terrific ball-carrying 7 and George isn’t as talented in that area.) All the rest of today’s team score twos with AC the only three. I think Rocky and Gits have the best chance of getting a four if they star on this tour.
stillmissit said | October 27th 2009 @ 7:17am | Report comment
I would take Smith over Poido any time. Used to play against him and although tough enough he never had the natural skills that Smith has. Smith in my book is one of the MOST talented ball handlers in any Australian pack I have seen over the last 30 odd years. He can slip amazing passes, kicks well, strips balls on the fly … what more do you want?
Maybe 4″-5″ more height?
stillmissit said | October 27th 2009 @ 7:22am | Report comment
On second thoughts the only player who comes close to him was Ray Price.
Knives Out said | October 27th 2009 @ 7:24am | Report comment
‘Used to play against him and although tough enough he never had the natural skills that Smith has.’
That’s interesting. Tell me more if you don’t mind, stillmissit.
stillmissit said | October 27th 2009 @ 8:04am | Report comment
KO – my recollection of him was that he was very fit for those days but would put balls down when not under pressure or miss a pick up or pass occasionally a bit like Rocky does now (get rid of his gloves). His reputation was built on dogged determination v natural skills. There was another openside in Sydney rugby Gary Pearce who played a few times for the Wallabies, I thought he had superior ball skills to Poidevan but maybe not as tough. He was a wallaby 5 years before Poido made it.
Mick Gold Coast QLD said | October 27th 2009 @ 11:12pm | Report comment
You mention Pearce from that period – Mick Mathers and Bird Tuynman were also about then.
Both Pearce and Mathers had a few games for Australia and I recall a couple of virtuoso performances from Pearce – almost 6 and a half foot, ran well and was a fine tackler. Mathers was tough and skilled – he went on to become a stalwart of Beecroft Juniors with, I think, Dennis Tutty.
Bird, usually at No 8, was a powerful bloke who always played for the whole game – a bit like Poedevin in that regard.
Bird and Mathers were from the Mighty Woods, therefore I recall them as the best ever in their positions in the world, for all time. Of course.
Greg Russell said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:12am | Report comment
I agree that G Smith and R Price stand out by head and shoulders as Australian 7s, but as time goes on Smith because less like Price and McCaw becomes more. McCaw played a few matches for Canterbury this season at 8, and he was almost a reincarnation of Price. I’m hoping that the All Black selectors were too distracted to notice this.
Far from being “almost 6 and a half foot”, Pearse’s biggest problem was considered to be a lack of size.
Re Mick Mathers, here’s a true story about him. One year – it must have been around 1980 – he won the Sydney Morning Herald’s best-and-fairest award in Sydney grade rugby, even though he played the whole season with a buggered knee. When quizzed by a Herald reporter about how he had managed to play so well, Mathers answered “My knee injury meant I had to run straight and I couldn’t move to the side. So when I ran into a ruck, I had to hit it hard and straight. Similarly when I lined up a tackle or carried the ball.”
Not such a complicated game, is it.
Mick Gold Coast QLD said | October 28th 2009 @ 6:03pm | Report comment
“Pearse’s biggest problem was considered to be a lack of size”
Fair enough, Greg – he was several inches taller than me (at 6′) when I met him but a long streak of pelican’s … .
Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t Pearce of similar build to your Mrrrry Muxtd? (whose commentary I enjoy but who my NZ mates over here, with whom I enjoy the Great Game, do not rate highly – they are bloody hard markers these blokes! – although two were both provincial rep backs so they don’t know much about Rugby)
wannabprop said | October 27th 2009 @ 8:43am | Report comment
with respect to experience of playing against Poido… re Smith’s skills, are you talking about an open side flanker or a five eighth?
stillmissit said | October 27th 2009 @ 9:08am | Report comment
Sorry Wannabprop – dont understand what you are saying? Pearce was a flanker are you suggesting different?
wannabprop said | October 28th 2009 @ 1:32am | Report comment
stillmissit – sorry, I thought you were talking about Smith’s talents – passing, kicking etc. I’m a great admirer of Smith as a player, but personally, I wish he’d concentrate on his role as a blind side and leave the flash to the hair tint brigade. I was also an admirer of Pearce’s skills, and I still miss his analysis in the commentary box.
Frank O'Keeffe said | October 27th 2009 @ 4:28pm | Report comment
stillmissit,
Clearly your opinion carries a lot of weight because you played against Poido, and I agree that Poidevin’s ability could best be described as determination v skills (I would argue his determination won by K-O and made his lack of natural ability almost irrelevant).
However, it’s this bit that confuses me: “Smith in my book is one of the MOST talented ball handlers in any Australian pack I have seen over the last 30 odd years. He can slip amazing passes, kicks well, strips balls on the fly … what more do you want?”
I agree Smith was a far superior ball handler than Poidevin, but he’s not a five-eighth, he’s a flanker. While a backrower adds another dimension to his play if he has ball skills, a flanker’s primary responsibility is to act as a link between the backs and forwards. If the play breaks down in the backline, a flanker should be there to clean it up. If he is fast enough to support to ball carrier, he should be there to take passes etc etc etc.
Poidevin was just better at all those things compared to Smith, at least the George Smith of today. And it’s those things that are more important when it comes to being a flanker. George Smith might throw a few awesome passes here and there, but he doesn’t exert the same influence on a game that McCaw does, or in recent times that Brussow has.
People love to allude to the fact that Smith has played with average Wallaby sides in the last few years. And I agree he was at his best when he played with Finegan and Kefu. In some respects that’s the best Australian backrow I have ever seen. But where this argument falls down is it doesn’t account for some of the diabolical stuff Smith does around the breakdown when Australia is getting flogged by a side.
What am I referring to? This year in Auckland he deliberately slowed the ball from coming out the other side of a ruck when the All Blacks looked likely to score. I think there was a possibility Australia might have been able to defend their line, but Australia were under immense pressure, they were starved for possession, and George Smith wasn’t in the game. So he did that, gave away a penalty, gave away Australia’s narrow lead, and in fact was lucky not to be yellow carded.
In the next game against South Africa HE WAS yellow carded. The game was over, he was frustrated, he grabbed du Preez’s arm over the ruck (if I recall correctly), and got sent off. The best I’ve seen George Smith play in the last few years was against Daniel Braid in the Sydney Test from 2008. I thought he was back to his old self. But a week later McCaw mastered him even worse than he did from 2005-2007, and Smith wound up giving away plenty of points to New Zealand.
In short, George Smith does some diabolical stuff that gives away points when he’s under pressure. For that reason I can’t put him above Poidevin. There’s just a laundry sheet of Smith doing some stupid stuff from 2005-2009, and it’s not just limited to games against McCaw. When the Wallabies were under pressure in the Northern Hemisphere, Smith regularly gave away penalties.
I don’t want to paint Smith as anything other than a fantastic player. He may have been Australia’s best player from 2000-2002. He’s been Australia’s best player in so many games. But in more recent times he’s somewhat become ill-disciplined around the breakdown area. People can talk about him playing in an average side etc, but it’s one thing not to be able to influence a game, it’s quite another to do so much diabolical stuff around the breakdown.
Smith is by far a more naturally talented player than Poidevin. ‘Naturally talented’ isn’t a word you’d associate with Poidevin. But Poidevin was better at the basic things a flanker has to do. Of course with rule changes the role of the flanker has changed a bit since then, but Poidevin was always the first to try and rip and pry and tear the ball away in mauls. The first to throw his body over the ball before a ruck was formed. I can’t recall the times a play would break down in the backline and he’d be the first one there to clean things up. I’ve commented on his link play during the 1984 Grand Slam tour in another thread.
Poidevin’s competitiveness was also such an invaluable commodity that you couldn’t leave him out of the side. He just loved taking on Buck Shelford. There’s a picture of Buck Shelford becomming so infuriated by Poidevin, that after Poidevin found his way through a poorly formed maul, Shelford got him in a headlock and started punching him. He went mad because Poidevin was so annoying. Someone asked Buck Shelford which player he respected the most and he said Poidevin. I guess the two men were alike somewhat. Shelford once said you could be flogging a side, but Poidevin would still be trying as hard as anybody in the last 10 minutes. You couldn’t sit back and enjoy the game against Poidevin because he never gave up.
I think if a flanker is going to influence a game, he’s going to do it moreso by firstly doing the primary things a flanker is expected to do. Richie McCaw doesn’t have the ball skills of Smith (though they’re not terrible either), but he was so far ahead of George Smith in terms of influence for so many years it’s not funny. I used to cringe when Aussies here on the Roar would suggest Smith was the world’s best player, and better than McCaw because he had better ball skills. Watch how dominant Smith was over Braid, and then how poor Smith was against McCaw the week later from 2008. I think that shows it’s more important to do the primary things a flanker is expected to do, rather than being a tremendously super fit player (which Smith is) and having awesome ball skills for a forward.
Poidevin was better at those things than Smith, despite not being born with much natural ability.
stillmissit said | October 27th 2009 @ 5:32pm | Report comment
Frank great, well thought out post and I have to reply as I put up in the first place.
My take on Smith to start out is that he would have been best in the world had not McCaw shown up. To take your first question, the skills he possesses that I mentioned ie passes, kicks, stripping are in addition to what an openside has to do that you stated most clearly ie getting to the breakdown and securing ball and acting as the link. I believe he has done that at a level of number 2 in the world for a few years which in my book makes him a key Wallaby.
Smith has been overshadowed by McCaw I agree, but in terms of giving away penalties McCaw does a better job on the refs than Smith. I have watched Ritchie enter our half of the ruck grabbing at the ball and getting away with it, if Smith does something like that he will get penalised. Dont know why, it just happens.
(Kiwi supporters please note I would love Smith to get away with some more as well or for them both to be penalised equally but life ain’t right and it ain’t fair. That’s what makes it interesting)
Finigan and Kefu gave great go forward and most opensides benefit from that. Smith has been outstanding in some very average packs and I could argue that he has kept us in games we didn’t deserve to be in. I can’t remember Poido doing that.
I agree that his penalty sheet is getting longer but so are most opensides in the game as they push the boundaries further and further due mostly to poor reffing. Brousow got a solid caning in Brisbane if my memory serves me right.
I stated above that Ray Price was the best linking breakaway I have ever seen, including Smith and Poidevin, so comparing these 2 seems a bit of an anticlimax to me. Poido as you say, would always put his body on the line sometimes to little effect, sometimes to great affect but compare him to Buck Shelford and there is daylight shining through. I dont want to leave Australia but NZ has produced a dazzling display of opensides over the years and McCaw is possibly the best ever.
To my mind Podevin was a gutsy, smart, fast openside who gave and asked no quarter. Smith is like wise smart and fast but not as combative as Poido. He is very skillful and in todays game we need more of his type and not less.
stillmissit said | October 27th 2009 @ 7:13am | Report comment
Spiro – strong disagreement on a couple of players. Gits would have made that line up as would Smith, Mortlock a few years ago would have, but not now. I wouldn’t put Robinson in the front row of that team, it was a front row the likes of which we have never replicated even in 1999.
I was hoping AAC would make it as I am a fan of his guts speed and determination this year but I am happy enough with Gits getting the gong. Sharpe is a signpost to all that is wrong with player attitude, all style, no substance.
LeftArmSpinner said | October 27th 2009 @ 10:02am | Report comment
SMI, yep, I am with you on AAC. He is jsut great player, skillful, gutsy and level headed, unpretentious and a competitor. Moving him back to 15 is not fair to him in trying to make him into a world XV 13. The less changes the better.
sheek said | October 28th 2009 @ 7:51am | Report comment
Missit,
Interesting exchange with Frank. Agree Elsom & Smith as a pair are better than Codey & Poidevin, but not by much. Also agree with frank, that Poido’s supreme comptitiveness makes it difficult to ignore him.
I played against Poido at school & he carved us up. I played against codey at Colts & off the field, was a true delight. On the field awesomely tough. On reflection, I would go with Poido & Codes. They were brutally tough, moreso than Elsom & Smith.
You also mentioned Giteau & Mortlock at his best making a combined team? Who would Gits replace? Certainly not Ella, & neither Lynagh. Gits is over-blown hype, IMHO.
Mortlock for Slack? In straight ability, perhaps. But Slack had wondeful, inclusive skills.
stillmissit said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Sheek – I was only thinking of Giteau as an I/C and I think he would have replaced Lynagh although Michael Lynagh got better the longer he played.
Mortlock for Slack, yes every time although Slack was a great captain.
Elsom and Smith over Codey and Poidevan based on natural skills and a similar workrate to Poido and Codey. I was watching some shorts of the 84 games yesterday and Poido bombed a sitter where he only had to slip the pass. His speed and aggression were his big things.
Frank O'Keeffe said | October 28th 2009 @ 4:30pm | Report comment
stillmissit,
Thanks for responding to my post. I do tend to rabble on. I think we can agree to disagree on a few things, however there were one or two things I disagreed with.
Watch the Sydney Test from 2008 and how poorly the All Blacks played. Then watch the Auckland Test and watch what a difference McCaw makes. It’s clear the All Blacks are a worse side without him – there’s a good margin there. It’s not a case of McCaw being clearly better than Smith because he’s in a good side, it’s a case of McCaw making the All Blacks a better side. Last year’s game in Auckland, to me, cemented McCaw as one of the greatest ever.
I do agree that McCaw tends to get away with more than Smith. This year in Auckland McCaw did one of the most blatantly obvious infringements you’ll ever see when the Aussies tried to counter attack from fullback. Instead Australia got pinged for holding on. Even most New Zealanders I talk to, who would usually defend Richie in an instant such as that, admitted McCaw got away with murder there.
It’s interesting that you mention that Poidevin perhaps hasn’t saved as many games for Australia as Smith has, becauyse I’ve had a mind for quite a while to write a piece listing the games Australia needed Poidevin the most. Off the top of my head I’d say:
- Against New Zealand in 1982 (2nd Test)
Poidevin, Roche, Lucas, are tackling like demons possessed. There’s 10 minutes to go, Australia are narrowly defending their lead. The Australian backrow tackle better than I have ever seen, and make plenty of last gasp tackles to avoid overlaps. Mark Ella and Peter Grigg also made such huge tackles in that game.
- Against New Zealand in 1988 (2nd Test)
The famous drawn Test. This would be the only game New Zealand didn’t win from 1987-1989. The worst part of this Test is I think Australia should have won it. But anyway, the New Zealanders were ambushed by the ferocity of the Australian forwards in the first half, with Poidevin the best player. I would actually go so far to say that the Aussie backrow outplayed the Blacks in that famous first half, despite Michael Jones scoring a controversial try. Shelford didn’t get into the game.
- Against Ireland in 1991 (World Cup semi final)
Before caling his infamous cut-two-loop, Michael Lynagh called a move which brought Campo towards the forwards. Unfortunately there was an Irish player who nearly ripped the ball of Campo. Poidevin latched onto the ball and tried to rip it away, but couldn’t. But because Campese and Poidevin held onto the ball and Simon drove forward, Australia got the scrum feed. As history shows, Australia won the game off the next play. As Greg Growden once said, Australia needed Poidevin’s rat-cunning to win the world cup! In fact a week later the play broke down in the Aussie backline, Poidevin did the clean-up work extremely well, Lynagh got the ball, chip-kicked, and Campo did his famous blind pass. It’s easy to look at Campo’s moment of genius and forget there was a forward who did something pretty important beforehand.
- Against New Zealand in 1991 (1st Test)
I was watching this the other day. The Aussies were worried about the return of Michael Jones. Poidevin came up against him and achieved parity. He didn’t beat him or outplay him, but Jones showed no marked dominance on the game (which Australia won 21-12). This game shows the real value of Poidevin. He was someone who could achieve parity with a lot of better players, simply because he was more competitive than them.
And while Poidevin wasn’t the player Shelford was, he could achieve parity with a lot of fine players. There used to be a video on youtube dedicated with Buck Shelford where he’s running over Wallaby after Wallaby (I think it was the first Test of 1988), and then he came up against Poidevin and Poido cut him down. Poidevin couldn’t match Buck for physicality, but he could match him for competitiveness.
But despite all that said, your reasons for finding Smith a better player are valid and really it just comes down to a difference of opinion. Both have won ane endless amount of games for Australia.
Vincent said | October 27th 2009 @ 8:43am | Report comment
I was as suprised as Matt Giteau that he recieved the John Eales Medal, when I spoke to him afterwards, he still seemed a bit sheepish about it. I guess he knows he did not do enough to warrant it. Spot on Spiro about the regard in which team mates regard each other vCoach.
I was looking forward to talking to you at the JEM, saw you talking to David Brockhoff at one point then you vanished by the time I go there.
stuff happens said | October 27th 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment
I remember the 1984 Wallabies very well and they were a wonderful team – one of the best touring teams to the UK.Everyone admired them.
And, the pushover try at Cardiff was embarrassing for the Welsh but not humiliating, mainly because it was such an ordinary Welsh team .I don’t think there was one player of note.Australia also scored one of their best tries that started with Farr Jones to Campese and scored I think by Michael Lynagh.
In a sense it’s unfair to compare the ‘09 with the ‘84 Wallabies, they are at a completely different stage of development. How well the 2009 team will do partly depends of course on the quality of the opposition which is difficult to assess yet.
Matt Giteau’s performances in the TN have been hampered by the lacklustre efforts of the Australian pack..Even average fly halfs can look good behind a great pack ,but a great player will struggle if his forwards show the same passion and zeal that the Wallabies have treated us to recently.
The real test of this tour for Australia is whether they can find a pack who can compete for 80 mins.
LeftArmSpinner said | October 27th 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
The 1984 and 2009 teams are at very different stages of development. The 1984 team was great up front and at the set pieces. But they had a cohesive playing strategy in the backs that played off this platform and a master playmaker in Ella.
The 2009 team is just out of the factory. further, they will struggle because they are weak in the 2nd row, due to injuries to Caldwell, Kimlin, Hocking and the form loss of Horwill.
This single problem has the potential to mask any improvement on this tour, at least.
But, with Barnes at 10, and while he is not Ella, he has vision and can pass and kick. Now the backs need to start to play like backs. The 1984 team would be a good place to start in determining the attacking strategy.
yea, I hear you say that things have changed since 1984, fitter players, better defences,etc. But the more things change, the more they stay the same. You still unlock defences with strength and/or skill, asking the defence to make choices.
The fastest object on the field is still the ball!!! Remember AAC’s try in Brisbane or Boks tries in a similar position in SA against the Wallabies. precision backline moves at pace from set pieces.
Where my focus has been on getting the culture and hence the squad reorganised, now it is time for Deans, the backs coach, and the players start to use the ball effectively. it may be quite a rare commodity on this tour. it may come down to two plays in each game, or 10 plays on a GS tour!!!! Dont waste them.
Harry said | October 27th 2009 @ 9:33am | Report comment
Great article.
My thoughts are this Wallabies team is more likely to experience a tour similar to the Wallabies of 81/82 which they remind me of more than the 84 side. I just don’t think they have the track record in Europe and the cohesion necessary to win all 4 tests, and will found out in the forwards in a few of these games – particularly in the second row where we lack depth and height/presence, and also at tighthead and at number 8, unless Palu fires up and delivers consistently. We are also terribly reliant on Barnes staying fit and firing in the backs (like the 81/82 Wallabies were with Paul McLean).
I very much hope to be proved wrong as the Wallabies deliver a grand slam. A good strong showing in Tokyo with NO injuries is needed, but I think its the England test which will determine whether it goes the route of 81/82 or 84.
Harry said | October 27th 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
Can remember watching Deans playing a blinder that day at Ballymore in 84 when the Kiwi’s won a test they perhaps shouldn’t have. Mind you, he milked a crucial penalty by taking a dive when tapped on the shoulder by that well known enforcer and defensive hard man, one David Campese.
OldManEmu said | October 27th 2009 @ 9:59am | Report comment
I broadly agree with the semtiments regarding the comparability of the 1984 side to the current flock (of seagulls) but I cannot let the comments from such an astute observer as Spiro vis a vis the John Eales medal go unpassed.
In true Alan Ramsay style – hasn’t it been nice to see the Thunderer back in the limelight in the last few days:
Spiro said: “The voting tallies for the John Eales medal, which took in the 2008 Spring Tour and all the subsequent Tests up to the end of the 2009 Tri-Nations, also make for sobering reading.
Matt Giteau 190 votes
Nathan Sharpe 162 votes
George Smith 161 votes
Benn Robinson 132 votes
Adam Ashley-Cooper 106
The first point to make is that Robinson and Ashley-Cooper deserved far more points than they received. I believe they should have been comfortably first and second in the tallies.
How could Nathan Sharpe, who was dropped at one stage, garner the points tally he did, for instance?
The points allocation demonstrates to me where the players believed their leaders were. The leaders were three veterans who, in the case of Sharpe (certainly), Smith and Giteau (possibly) have seen their best days. The points were allocated to these leaders were more in line with their status within the group than for their actual performances on the field.”
On a thread here specifically regarding the John Eales mdeal I said:
“As I am prone to do, I am going to go into bat for Sharpe here.
If one is going to shit-can the John Eales medal then one is in the proces going to shit can the credibility of the entire Wallaby playing ranks to the extent that when they are asked at the end of each match “Who got your players player votes” their response involves a mixture of incompetence, dishonesty, The Old Mates Act and sheer stupidity.
Pfffft – if you believe that you truly are living on another planet.
Why would the Wallaby players do anything other than vote in accordance with what they observe during the game? Why indeed? The answer is “No reason” and therefore I believe that anyone who is having a go at the credibility of the John Eales medal process and in turn the integrity of the players truly has their head up their bum.
And finally, yet again the people who constantly attack Sharpe as being a do nothing loser, need to re-assess thier motives. He is a fine player who has been a loyal servant to Australian Rugby and he has more to offer yet. The men that he goes into battle with recognise this and they better than any single other person, are in the best position to judge.
That is all I have to say about that!”
So it is no secret to any regular Roarer that I am a fan of Sharpe. I think he is the most unfairly maligned footballer in Australia – in any code! But I simply do not buy this notion that the players do not vote in a fair dinkum way when giving their players players votes. I assume they are provided in secret or semi secret unless the players tell each other how they vote. And players at that level want to win, badly. I would be very surprised if the junior players voting for players player was influenced by the level of seniority of the recipient of their vote. In my experience in sporting sides where everyone is pretty focussed on winning, the players have a keenly operating “bullshit-ometer”, which is to say that if a player is not putting in he gets called on it and pretty soon is ostracised if his performance does not pick up. It is not enough to train the house down, organise the end of season piss-up, be nice to the wives and girlfriends, and be a gernal good bloke; although all that helps. At the end of it, if you are a good player you are in the circle and if you are a bad player you are out of it.
If it is true that because Nathan Sharpe has been in the team for a long time that he gets more Players player votes then I will eat my hat.
MM Fike said | October 27th 2009 @ 10:50am | Report comment
I would like nto see AAC pass the ball a little bit more. Adding that skill would make him the complete player.
Gee it’s difficult comparing 1984 to 2009 because the game is so different. The 1984 team was magnificent for the era in which they played. They were a class act.
I’m sure the players on the 2009 tour will grow in status and skills. For many in the team their best years are ahead of them.
Ireland is the team I fear most. That test will be a battle of wills and brute strength.
Thanks for another great article Spiro.
Kick to kick said | October 27th 2009 @ 11:50am | Report comment
There’s an inherent silliness in comparing players and teams from different eras. In virtually all sports where performance is measurable, the stars of 25 years ago would run or swim wellbehind modern athletes. Though teams games are not generally so measurasble, I suspect the same incremental advance is true for football codes. If a time machine enabled the 1984 Wallabies to play the 2009 Wallabies today’s team would win by 50 points. The 80s team just could not match the fitness, size, endutrance, tacking and coaching techniques which have evolved. That’s not to says that Ella or Poidevin couldn’t excell if each grew and trained in the modern era – but thrown into today’s game straight from from the 80s they would find they had less time to react, the tackles would hurt , defensive patterns would overwhelm their creative instincts. Best to leave past champions as champions of their own era.
stillmissit said | October 27th 2009 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
Fairish point Kick to Kick but if we imagine that you could take the 84 team and train them for 6 months in this current environment then I bet you would get a vastly different outcome.
As a pragmatist you most probably should leave the dreaming to the rest of us.
LeftArmSpinner said | October 27th 2009 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
and we are not all inherently silly??? Of course we are, and long may it be so!!!!!
sheek said | October 28th 2009 @ 7:55am | Report comment
Kick to Kick,
Comparisons are not an exact science, & in any case, hardly silly.
A player or team that dominated his own era is the key. Besides, the great Don Bradman argued, “A champion in one era is a champion in any era”.
You did maths at school, I’m sure – find the common demoninator. Then it makes it easier to compare players & teams from different eras.
sheek said | October 27th 2009 @ 4:02pm | Report comment
This current Wallaby is so ordianry, lacking the heroes of 1984.
If they manage to win the GS, it won’t vindicate their brilliance. It will merely tell us how incredibly weak British & Irish rugby has become.
Sure, B&I rugby was becoming weak in 1984 too, but the brilliance of the Wallabies then still shone through.
The current Wallabies are a parody of almost everything wrong with Australian rugby, & some things wrong with world rugby.
vinay verma said | October 27th 2009 @ 4:47pm | Report comment
Sheek..The only aspect where the current Wallabies rate higher than the class of ‘84 is in the size of their pay packet. Underperforming and overpaid primma donnas. This is not to say they dont have talent..its just the lack of respect they have for the Wallaby Jersey and by extension for their teammates. I would get them flying cattle class again just to remind them of the hooves the early Wallabies took on their backs. I am tired of the building for 2011 mantra . Win or try to win every game you play..otherwise dont put your hand out to be paid.
sheek said | October 27th 2009 @ 6:15pm | Report comment
V V,
Yep, the Wallabies are grossly overpaid, & have been so since 1996. But at least between 1998-2003, they could say they “almost” justified the high pay packets.
Banger said | October 27th 2009 @ 4:17pm | Report comment
Spiro, nice article.
Wholeheartedly agree about Robinson being far and away the best wallaby this season. Not only has he developed into a worldclass frontrower, whenever he filled in (pre genia’s selection) he was also our best scrumhalf.
On the 1984 team, I only ever saw a few of them play, but surely George Smith would have made this team. From his first test, until now he has consistently performed at an extremely high level, against some of the finest opposition opensides ever. While Poidevin had Michael Jones, Smith has had to face a seemingly endless glut of worldclass sevens. Including, Kronfeld, Burger, Back, Magne, McCaw and now Roussow to name a few. Surely this would have to put him in front of Poidevin.
AndyS said | October 27th 2009 @ 5:12pm | Report comment
A question for those lauding the ‘84 Wallabies. My recollection of those days is a little dim, but looking back on the results around that time it seems that in the year or so previous the team had lost to Argentina, lost three from four to NZ and gone a loss and draw against France. Everyone looks back on that series and team as legendary, but was that the view leading up to the series?
Frank O'Keeffe said | October 27th 2009 @ 5:24pm | Report comment
The 1984 Wallabies were vastly different to the 1983 Wallabies. I’ll be quite controversial and say the change was a result of Alan Jones’ coaching. Jones never has, and likely never will, get the credit he deserves for changing Australian rugby for the better.
Under Jones Australia did the following:
- Selected Steve Cutler. A man who was told his international career was over. Cutler reportedly had some awful confidence problems after the 1983 tour. Alan Jones was the best thing that happened to him.
- Added more height into the line-out. Dropping the gutsy Chris Roche was a move nobody agreed with, until they saw what a difference David Codey made.
- Selected Nick Farr-Jones. A man playing in the second division in Sydney. Farr-Jones didn’t have the accurate pass he’d later possess, but he did a lot fo things exceptionally well on that tour.
- Added a goal-kicker in Michael Lynagh. While Lynagh didn’t kick well on the Grand Slam tour until the Scotland test, his selection was bold and terrific.
I won’t give Alan Jones credit for adding Topo Rodriguez to the side because any coach in the world would have known to do that. Jones did ask Rodriguez to play loosehead, however, so as now to lose the ability of Andy McIntyre.
On top of all that, Australia was now more prepared and more confident under Alan Jones. Jones sent shockwaves of enthusiasim through that side. Under him, Australia was by far the most prepared side in world rugby. Jones, in many ways was a precursor to the likes of MacQueen and Woodward in the way he’d prepare his side.
Someone asked Brian Lochore how he prepared his sides, and he’d talk about looking at how the Wallabies performed in provincial games etc. Jones would have information coming in from the UK weeks before the Wallabies even embarked on the Grand Slam tour.
Australian Rugby has a lot to thank Jones for.
stillmissit said | October 27th 2009 @ 5:42pm | Report comment
Frank – “I won’t give Alan Jones credit for adding Topo Rodriguez to the side because any coach in the world would have known to do that. Jones did ask Rodriguez to play loosehead, however, so as not to lose the ability of Andy McIntyre.”
It was interesting talking to Topo a few weeks ago at a function, he was saying that he wanted to come to Australia and wrote to Randwick and Gordon but got no reply, a friend put him in touch with Warringah and they sponsored him over here. Without the guys at Warringah we wouldn’t have had a Topo to discuss here. Or the great front row that he was the corner stone of.
It has been a tragedy that during all the pathetic scrummaging in the Wallabies over the last few years nobody called Topo for assistance. Seems unbelievable to me.
This is the end of my big noting myself for a while. I am sure you are relieved.
Frank O'Keeffe said | October 27th 2009 @ 6:18pm | Report comment
stillmissit,
By all means note yourself. I’m finding this very interesting.
I had never heard that story about Topo Rodriguez before, and it shocked me tremendously I must say.
sheek said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:01am | Report comment
Frank,
I can confirm Stillmissit’s story since I have also met Topo several times, socially even, & can confirm his story, every word of it.
Topo said to me on more than one occassion, that when he stopped playing, the ARU never gave him another thought.
Now he is involved in another project very personal to him, & the sadness is rugby has probably lost him.
Australian rugby, & especially the ARU, can be very dumb at times.
stillmissit said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:45am | Report comment
Sheek – Topo also said that the one person who helped him when he was down to his last dollar and without enough money to put a bond on a flat and some serious bils to pay was Alan Jones.
Topo said of Alan “He is the one person who has stood by me through thick and thin” or words to that effect.
I am not a great fan of Alan Jones apart from his early Wallaby coaching years but this endorsement had me nodding my head.
sheek said | October 27th 2009 @ 6:19pm | Report comment
Right on Frank,
I would go a bit further & say Alan Jones brought “clarity”.
Bob Dwyer was a fine coach in his own right, bringing in Lawton, McIntyre, Cutler, Roche, Codey & Tuynman into the pack 1982-83 (all their test debuts).
But Dwyer was bogged down by his ‘attacking rugby’ dogma. At least Jones was willing to be more flexible in his tactics.
Mick Gold Coast QLD said | October 27th 2009 @ 11:51pm | Report comment
Accurate, Frank and well recorded. And Australian Rugby ought to knight the bloke for what he did with that team, and the legacy won from its achievements. I was a “retain Dywer – who is this upstart” man at the time, and I was wrong.
I do recall what stillmissit says (below) of Topo’s entry to club rugby in Sydney. As to him not being called on to assist (which he could – his passion and well earned arrogance would be a revelation to ‘em. I do recall he was crook a couple of years back) I fear the Australian front row would believe he has nothing of value to offer – a bit like Giteau’s over-baked idea of his own importance, reportedly sooking over not being named vice captain and about potentially losing “his” position as an inept first five. I recall Deans telling them mid year that their rare good fortune at being there could be all over so quickly and it seems that one wasn’t listening.
And therein lies the starkest of distinctions between Jones’ / Slack’s Wallabies and this lot – attitude and real, not expressed by press release, determination. The 1984 blokes had a sight more talent, too – both patent and latent. The current lot cannot stand in the same room as them. I read with interest the assessment of Poedivin, above. There is not one current Wallaby that has his fierce resolve and capacity to do something with it.
If these well paid tourists manage to put together 3 or 4 successful instances of pass, catch, pass, catch, pass, catch, make some ground, retain the ball and repeat the above – I will say they have demonstrated some improvement over this year’s feeble efforts. Suggestion of a grand slam is fanciful and unjustifiable on the facts.
Dublin Dave said | October 28th 2009 @ 4:20am | Report comment
I didn’t see the 1984 Wallabies at the time. I was in the middle of my “wander round the nether regions of Europe and the Middle East while wondering what to do with the next part of your life” phase, and this was back in the days before satellite TV.
However, I distinctly remember being badgered in the Hofbrauhas Beer Keller in Munich by a triumphant Australian sports fan eager to discuss how “our blokes had stuffed you lot at the Union” earlier in the season. I also distinctly remember that he said “but the 1981 team (which had lost two out of four tests if memory serves) was better.”
Was he right?
Only possible person able to do a comparison of one historical team with respect to another is the Great Sheek so I’ll leave him to it.
But it does seem to suggest that the past is always viewed via rose tinted spectacles.
sheek said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:07am | Report comment
Gidday Dublin Dave,
What this Aussie meant was that the 1981 team had a better backline & probably a better backrow as well. But it was woefully inadequate in the tight-five, lacking both size in height & weight, & more importantly, technique.
Therefore, the 1981 team overall, wasn’t as good as the 1984 team.
Gut gee, they had some mighty players.
For the record, players chosen in both 1981 & 84 were – R.Gould, P.Grigg, B.Moon, A.Slack, M.Hawker, M.Ella, P.Cox (a quality backline), S.Poidevin, C.Roche & S.Williams.
Dublin Dave said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:03am | Report comment
That Australian team of 1981/82 probably did Ireland a favour.
Although the match in Dublin was the only test of the four it won, I remember reading that Mark Loane, who had been the skipper I think, said that the toughest two tests they had to play were against Ireland and England, simply because those two teams had the best forwards.
Australia’s victory in Dublin was the seventh consecutive international that Ireland had lost. If memory serves, that was a record poor run of form at the time. Although Ireland had whitewashed Australia in a test series in 1979 it had had a 50/50 record the following season and had lost all four Five Nations games in 1981. A two test defeat on tour to South Africa in mid 1981 was compounded by the defeat to Australia in Dublin. Something had to change.
What had happened in 1981 was that Ireland had tried to square the circle of accommodating its two outstanding out halves, Ollie Campbell and Tony Ward, born within a few weeks of each other, on the same team. Ward had been sensationally dropped in favour of Campbell on the Australian tour and kept off the team in 1980. In 1981 he was back playing at fly half while Campbell moved into the centre. All four matches were lost by tight margins. Away to Scotland and Wales, there was only a point in each game. The home defeats to France and England were both Campbell’s fault. In each case he took a quick and ill advised deep drop out while Ireland were leading and sent the ball straight into the hands of a fast backline who could run it back and outpace the Irish defence.
In Wales, Ward had played a memorable match creating two dazzling tries out of nothing yet in one of the few occasions in which a team outscoring the opposition by two tries still lost, Ireland were beaten 9-8 with neither of the two extravagant kicking talents managing a single score from the boot. In the match against Australia, Ireland playing with Ward tried a running game but just did not have the backs to play such a style effectively.
For the Five Nations starting a few weeks later, they dropped Ward, brought back Campbell and told him on no account to pass the ball to his back line. It worked a treat. Running things on his own Ireland scored their first Triple Crown win in 33 years, back in the days when that was considered important.
Maybe history will repeat itself this year. Although Ireland are reiging Grand Slam champions, much of the team is creaking on very elderly legs and there are a slew of young guns chomping at the bit for their chance. Especially in the front row and at out half. Whatever about the crunch game with South Africa, a heavy defeat to an unheralded Australian team — we’ve noticed that the Tri Nations didn’t go so well this year–could see a clear out of some famous old heads.
If you must win, at least do us the favour of exposing what needs to be exposed.
Frank O'Keeffe said | October 27th 2009 @ 5:29pm | Report comment
It’s also interesting to talk about the changes Jones made to the Wallabies side in 1984. Robbie Deans really hasn’t made any changes, significant changes, since 2008.
If there was a hypothetical 2009 Alan Jones what would he do to change the side I wonder? I think Alan Jones would be smart enough to play Barnes at 5/8.
The Other Reds Fan. said | October 27th 2009 @ 5:51pm | Report comment
Frank, I think that dropping Smith for Pocock and adding Alexander, O’Connor and Genia and appointing Rocky captain are pretty significant, although I don’t know if they were the coach’s decisions. Jones would go further and drop Mitchell and Burgess and find a mongrel second rower.
We will lose this week-end but we will get the grand slam and you will see a revitalised team come back. I hope.
TommyM said | October 27th 2009 @ 5:43pm | Report comment
If you want to watch the ‘84 Wallabies, the highlights of every test are on the rugby.com.au site. As a relatively young fella, I hadn’t see them before and it was an eye opener. A few things really stood out. 1. The backline was superb in attack at hitting the line with speed and getting behind the defensive line as the caught the ball. 2. Ella threw loopy passes! 3. The tackling was appaling and I’m surprised there weren’t more tries. 4. We lost a lot of our lineouts back then too! 5. The scrums were an altogether different beast entirely and got nowhere near as low as today (and that is why they diodn’t collapse all the time I presume). 6. Referees didn’t play advantage! Bizarre!! Overall, the game was so different- much more like the intensity of an elite level schoolboy game from my frame of reference. But boy that backline worked nicely…
PS Can anyone who has played with both the old, heavy leather ball and the new, light rubber ball comment on the differences in handling them in dry conditions?
AndyS said | October 27th 2009 @ 5:58pm | Report comment
Interesting that the ‘84 team lost some midweek matches without tarnishing the crown. If the same were to occur this year….?
TommyM said | October 27th 2009 @ 10:29pm | Report comment
Too right! Though you’d have to assume it wasn’t the first choice test team playing.
bozo said | October 27th 2009 @ 10:17pm | Report comment
Stillmissit is not “noting” himself by having spoken with Topo. Sad thing is that Topo has delivered pizzas to my home (well published elsewhere, so no secrets there) instead of being embraced to gainfully contribute to the development of rugby.
stillmissit said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:57am | Report comment
Bozo – I wonder what makes us so arrogant that we don’t want to use the best we have had? I believe NZ and SA don’t do this, wonder why we ignore our past.
Topo is not the only example I have heard of but must be the worst. There are a couple of ex great Wallabies who have put their hand up to help and been ignored in the last 8 dark years. Even if you believe that their experience is so ‘old hat’ the passion and commitment would come through and at least set the bar the guys are aiming at.
Maybe the coaches are worried about their jobs. Small thinking brings small results!
sheek said | October 28th 2009 @ 5:44pm | Report comment
Stillmissit,
The answer is simple – politics.
There aren’t that many positions available in Australian rugby for coaching or administration. Too often it goes to mates.
Topo is outspoken & forthright, too easily treads on toes.
I wonder why the current Wallabies & super teams are so bland, so one-dimensional?
Is it because their coaches, so desperate to hang onto the few well-paid coaching positions available, have removed all innovation, enterprise & individualism out of the Australian game?????
stillmissit said | October 28th 2009 @ 6:03pm | Report comment
Christ Sheek that is bloody depressing! I hope you are wrong but suspect you are right.
Working Class Rugger said | October 28th 2009 @ 6:06pm | Report comment
For anyone interested. Here a link to the Invictus trailer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqKjVo-9qso . Apart from Morgan Freeman’s accent being a bit off it looks very good.