• Super Rugby
• Fixtures
• Wallabies
• Rugby Championship
• International
• Wallabies v All Blacks
• Rugby RSS

The Crowd Says (58) | Page 1 of Comments

• 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.

  Reply

• 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).

  Reply

• 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.

  Reply
  • 

    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.

    Reply

• 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.

  Reply
  • 

    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?

    Reply
    • 

      stillmissit said | October 27th 2009 @ 7:22am | Report comment

      On second thoughts the only player who comes close to him was Ray Price.

      Reply

    • 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.

      Reply
      • 

        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.

        Reply
        • 

          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.

          Reply
          • 

            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?

      Reply
      • 

        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?

        Reply

        • 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.

          Reply

    • 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.

      Reply
      • 

        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.

        Reply
• 

  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.

  Reply

  • 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.

    Reply

  • 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.

    Reply
    • 

      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.

      Reply

      • 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.

        Reply

• 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.

  Reply

• 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.

  Reply

• 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.

  Reply

• 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.

  Reply

• 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.

  Reply