By LeftArmSpinner -
November 1st 2009 @ 12:24am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
Where have all the backline plays gone?
If anyone ever thought this was a dead rubber, the television coverage of Robbie Deans and assistants standing arm-in-arm in the box, singing the Australian national anthem dispelled that.
The result was always going to be less important than the perceived effort, individually and collectively, from the Wallabies.
That the Wallabies came to play was a welcome realisation. The All Blacks always come to play. While this article is primarily about the Wallabies, credit again goes to the All Blacks for both winning and closing out the game when that was required. The Wallabies are only able to compete with the All Blacks, but not beat them.
Horwill, Moore and Palu returned to form with some mongrel, physical intimidation, committed play, and work-rate. Pocock had his best game in a Wallabies jersey. Alexander and Robinson were everywhere, and, in the process, with Woodcock, redefining the prop’s contribution to games.
Chisholm was okay. Elsom led from the front. Genia had his best game, albeit in patches and with some wayward passes. Giteau played well, but further confirmed that he is unable to get a backline to play like a backline, particularly from a set piece. The 5/8 solo run at a set defensive line is not a backline play.
Adam Ashley-Cooper, Hynes and Ioane were very involved and produced very good rugby. Cross and O’Connor were good in space, and Deans was clever in having O’Connor at 12 for much of the second half.
But, I hear you saying, the Wallabies lost by 13 points after leading at half-time by three points.
Yes, but the Wallabies are like a recovering alcoholic. Small steps count for much. Attitude and effort is very important. The rugby family has been through a lot. They need some reassurance. That came tonight.
But the lineout went missing; there were several costly turnovers in contact, they continued with dumb, pressure releasing mistakes, and there is still nothing from the backs that vaguely resembles back play.
Maintaining this intensity and improving tonight’s performance will see them break their losing streak. And that may be enough for this already severely weakened team.
Alternatively, with their backs to the wall, they may discover the inner-strength and resolve that transforms them into a tough, committed force that creates the next Wallabies dynasty.
I would like coach Deans to show more belief in his bench. They are either good enough to be selected on the bench, and hence get significant game time, or they are not. If the latter is the case, don’t select them at all.
It may be that Wallabies fans will look back at this game as the turning point for the team. Next week will tell us more about tonight’s game; how much was rust and how much was just deep seated inadequacy and lack of self-belief.
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...
(154)
kingplaymaker said | November 1st 2009 @ 2:41am | Report comment
Leftarm I think Palu’s hugely improved performance was actually the most significant thing, and made a huge difference to the Wallabies increased competitiveness at the breakdown. If he can continue like that then the Wallabies at least will have a world class back row.
Knives Out said | November 1st 2009 @ 3:59am | Report comment
‘Leftarm I think Palu’s hugely improved performance was actually the most significant thing, and made a huge difference to the Wallabies increased competitiveness at the breakdown.’
In what way?
Mick Gold Coast QLD said | November 1st 2009 @ 11:56am | Report comment
In much the same way that Giteau brings superb … muscle definition … to the team and leads the sprint to the pay office. Palu played as Palu always does – virtually uselessly.
If the Wallabies feeeeeeeel that Richie McCaw (an outstanding exponent of his craft) is very, very unfair and will not play nicely with the other kiddies then it is up to someone as big as Palu’s job to fall on him and squish his naughty little fingers every time he is near the ball.
Instead our coach wants teacher (the referee) to scold the lad!!! Baaaahhhh!
LeftArmSpinner said | November 1st 2009 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
he took the ball to the line for a while and made some good tackles. he just didnt do it for long enough and coughed up possession a few times.
cookie said | November 1st 2009 @ 3:00am | Report comment
Why was Palu taken off?
G Smith is pretty useless, and by no means a No. 8.
As soon as a ‘wrecking ball’ is taken off and a small player is put on it usually results in the loss of domination of the breakdown which is exactly what happened….All went tits up when Smith came on.
AC said | November 2nd 2009 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
Haha! That’s classic. “Domination of the breakdown”. Australia never had it. Palu certainly didn’t add anything to our competitiveness there. Lasting impressions from Palu’s game:
* Hardly sighted
* When sighted going into contact, he lost the ball
* When going in for the clean-out at the ruck, he went straight off his feet and his effectiveness is essentially 0.
Knives Out said | November 1st 2009 @ 3:30am | Report comment
LAS, I think you’re being a touch melodramatic here. Props have long been able to handle and carry the ball. The only thing Alexander did was to show how silly it is to attempt to play props on the side they haven’t grown up playing.
Btw, what/where was the turning point? Every time Australia suggests that it is becoming better at playing NZ NZ just amp up the speed. NZ is light years ahead of Australia on todays showing.
TommyM said | November 1st 2009 @ 7:34am | Report comment
I would say the exact oppostite. When the Wallabies tried to up the speed of the game, the ABs slowed it down in the ruck. The Wallabies have played their best footy this year when getting immediate ball out of the ruck and going again. The tactic of slowing the ball up in the ruck has been used very successfully by both the ABs and the Springboks to allow their defenses to reallign and make it difficult to penetrate their defenses. Last night it was clear that the ref was just not onto this. The Wallabies should have done one of two things- either adopt the same tactics themselves to stop the ABs scoring tries (although they were punished by Carter’s bot in their own half), or just ruck the S%$T out of McCaw et al as they lay over the ball to send them and the ref a message. I think it would have been worth 10 minutes in the bin to establishto the ref the fact that this was happening and encourage the ABs to stop doing (in the absence of the ref playing this role).
Knives Out said | November 1st 2009 @ 8:02am | Report comment
Let me rephrase – poor choice of words. Every time Australia looked like doing something gamebreaking NZ has always found a counter punch. Today NZ absorbed the early pressure and manipulated it. Anyhow, slowing down opposition ball is hardly genius level rugby. All sides do it. It’s not like NZ was trying to grind out a win. The NZ team wanted the ball in hand.
katzilla said | November 1st 2009 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
‘although they were punished by Carter’s bot in their own half’
That is probably one of the most appropriate spelling mistakes ever.
He is a bot.
katzilla said | November 1st 2009 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
By the way did you see the Fullback for NZ schoolboys knocking over a penalty from 59 metres at Ballymore?
Matt said | November 1st 2009 @ 6:42am | Report comment
We get very carried away working out how bad Australia are against the number 1 and 2 sides in the world. Let’s make a call after the Nthn hemisphere trip.
If England played NZ and SAF many times every year ( and were soundly beaten as surely they would be), I wonder if they would cop the same ‘underperforming’ tag.
Knives Out said | November 1st 2009 @ 8:04am | Report comment
You mean the England side that is ranked 7th? I’m sure they wouldn’t be labelled underperformers if they lost to the teams ranked 1 and 2 in the world – and quite rightly. The team that is ranked 3rd and has played NZ and SA regularly for years without tangible success can only be labelled underperformers.
cookee said | November 1st 2009 @ 8:15am | Report comment
KNIVES OUT,yes perennial underperformers and deans does not assist with his man management.
when will the deluded guru admit that kid oconnor is a liability and the backgound music at chch (still) had much to do with success.deans is a pretender at this level who has failed culturally and performance wise
Knives Out said | November 1st 2009 @ 8:21am | Report comment
I don’t think that O’Connor has been that bad, cookee. There are far greater issues than his presence in the team. Deans did drop him for this match, after all. The big issue is the backline as a whole.
cookee said | November 1st 2009 @ 8:34am | Report comment
knives ,oconnor has been the pivotal problem defensively in a couple of all black tests and his kicking is sub par .apart from that he would probably capt a schools fifteen .
what are the far greater issues knives ;gives us your top ten mon ami
Justin said | November 1st 2009 @ 8:37am | Report comment
Cookee I wouldnt bother answering anyone who thinks G Smith is pretty useless.
Talk about no idea… Go to the top of the class cookee
Knives Out said | November 1st 2009 @ 8:40am | Report comment
I would say that a key problem is producing an 80 minute performance. It is all well and good blasting out of the tracks but maintaining that intensity is vital. The forwards have shown improvements in this context but not enough to win an important test. The line out has been erratic all season and even though Australia’s scrum has improved it has not been able to show flexibility when presented with arbitrary refereeing. Rugby is firstly about gaining and keeping possession.
There are also big problems with the backs because Giteau is not playing well at 10. He needs to guide the team and direct the forwards. The midfield has been inconsistent due to the selections of Deans (AAC at 12 was and is ridiculous), and the back three has been inconsistent for the same reason. Overall the Australian backs do not look skillfull, accurate or clever enough to be a force at test level. To that extent I don’t think that had O’Connor not played this season Australia would have posted a better record.
1. Fierce and consistent ruck contest.
2. Accurate set piece.
3. Improved kicking game.
4. Improved back line skills.
5. Consistent and intelligent selection.
6. Consistent and intelligent tactics.
Armchair-critic said | November 1st 2009 @ 8:24am | Report comment
It is very easy to criticise cookee howabout you provide your version of a solution
cookee said | November 1st 2009 @ 8:39am | Report comment
change the coach.aust have already won two rwc and done better without deans;im sorry if you feel im over critical and impatient AC BUT THE HANDLING OF WALLABIES IS WOEFUL
sheek said | November 1st 2009 @ 9:18am | Report comment
Cookee,
So let me get this right – sack Deans, change the coach… with somebody else… anybody else… an Australian… & everything will be okay?
This is what you’re saying is all that needs to be done?????
Oh, & apply some stick-grip to their hands before running onto the field…..??
cookee said | November 1st 2009 @ 9:38am | Report comment
no sheek dont be pathetic .deans is delusional if he cannot fathom what most understand; dont you become the apologist.
just look at his man management atrocities;all im suggesting is anyone could get similar results as deans .a good coach would come in with his eyes wide open have a plan and structure to fit. deans gifted tamperings are great when they work but unfortunately havent materialised.
he would be sacked in any other business and blaming his staff doesnt wash or the supposed lack of cattle;what tripe ,when there is nothing between the teams apart from deans ridiculous selections and tactics.im sure the players will tell you what a happy camp they are ; coaches reduced to hugging each other during the pre game anthem;no one else wants to it seems.
LeftArmSpinner said | November 1st 2009 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
gents, this is effectively a new team in terms of personnel. they are without their playmaker, decent locks and their vice capt. So, I will accept tenacious performances, win lose or draw. H
However, I am now shifting my focus. the backs!!! we need some back play. Giteau is not the answer, never has been………so with barnes out, it falls to Cooper or Toomua. In reality, Cooper.
LeftArmSpinner said | November 1st 2009 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
gents, Its not O’Connor that is at fault. it is the 80 minute performance, as KO says. This is in their minds. inability to concentrate for a whole game……….. bad habits like reverting to the (bad) kick when they could not see anything on.
Deans cannot be held accountable for players not playing out the 80 minutes, unless they are not fit. They sure looked fit to me…….
Jouberrt said | November 1st 2009 @ 7:39am | Report comment
I must have been at a different match – The fowards had a glow of passion but could not engineer the early release of the ball for love or money and to me that is related to the effort at the breakdown – there was no one that stood out like Thorn for example did in the previous test. The less said about the lineout the better BUT if you are going to play width you have to be competitive. Don’t forget that the supposed loser Graham Henry I think is currently in charge of their lineouts. Winning the ball at 1 or 2 is a novelty not a long term option.
Backs could not be at all proud of the effort 1 the choices were wrong, 2 the kicks often went nowhere except towards heaven and then the chase was often at half pace or not worth the effort because of the placement. Sure they might have looked good in space but were often ordinary when comfronted by the opposition in close proximity – they should be reminded the sidelines are not the score lines ie you have to attack not just spread the ball for the TV cameras.
CraigB said | November 1st 2009 @ 8:10am | Report comment
KO – How so?? if they are 3rd and lose to teams above them surely they just showing that they are third for a reason…..
Knives Out said | November 1st 2009 @ 8:13am | Report comment
Losing to NZ regularly is no shock. Despite SA being the current IRB no 1 team for a few months NZ are and has long been the best team in the world. However, there has been constant fluctuation between SA and Australia. Australia should not be posting such massive losing records against either team as they have done this season. In contrast to past years results the results of this year suggest regression.
Bay35Pablo said | November 1st 2009 @ 6:07pm | Report comment
KO, “In contrast to past years results the results of this year suggest regression”. Finished last in 3N, and have lost 7 in a row to the ABs. Really? Glad you pointed that out for us.
I think we all agree this year has been a bad one. We aren’t going to click our fingers and fix it.
5 years ago we were playing 80 minute games, and the ABs kicking themselves for losing focus. These things are cyclical. It’s just np fun when at the bottom of one. When I feel bad I just look at the English and remind myself how they feel in a hole after 2003. It happens.
CraigB said | November 1st 2009 @ 8:12am | Report comment
England are greatest underperformers because a team with access to money, resources and player numbers like they do should NEVER be 7th. Australia do will with limited numbers. NZ do it best but they have historically been the only code in town. Australian footballing talent gets split 3 ways…
cookee said | November 1st 2009 @ 8:19am | Report comment
YES THE ONLY CODE IN TOWN AND DEANS HASNT ADAPTED but he will———tomorrow,tomorrow
Knives Out said | November 1st 2009 @ 8:19am | Report comment
I don’t think England’s IRB ranking is relevant to Australia’s terrible woes. England has suffered from terrible, terrible mismanagement under the control of Robinson and Ashton and the domestic structure was/is set out in a manner that effectively prevented success. Every glory achieved by England in the professional era has been a huge success simply due to the nature of what they have been up against. And let’s not forget that there has been a lot of successes. As we witnessed in the last WC England will always be a threat and it is my firm belief that there is very little difference between any of England, France, Wales, Ireland and Australia. Regardless of playing numbers Australia has had a fantastic professional structure to aid it and yet look at the current debacle. If England can perform well this Autumn with 27 players absent then I know which nation I’d be happier supporting.
Justin said | November 1st 2009 @ 8:34am | Report comment
So England with its own domestic competition and EC participation is up against it and Aus with no domestic comp but S14 has a fantastic pro structure?
Ah this is good…
Please explain KO
Knives Out said | November 1st 2009 @ 8:49am | Report comment
Super 14. High intensity. WC conditions. Best teams/players in the world (or so we are told). Players spend huge amounts of time in national camp and thus have elite athlete preparation.
GP. High intensity with occasionally poor skills and is forward orientated. Full of journeymen SH players and foriegners (or so we are told). Players spend minimal amount of time in national camp and are treated like meat playing far too many games per season. The same applies to France and the Top 14. Studies have revealed that the GP is physically and mentally draining and thus is not an adjunct of elite performance. Come back to me when your captain has played 40 games a season and you have an injur list containing 27 players.
Justin said | November 1st 2009 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
You are right, the Aussie dont play as much as the UK or French with most playing around 30 matches per year although most of those matches are high intensity with roughly half Tests.
What about NZ and SA players though? How many games do the play in comparison to the UK and French? The Bulls have played around 30 matches plus many have played the Test season also. Thats around 40 matches and also the NH tour to come.
Are they as up against it as England?
Knives Out said | November 1st 2009 @ 10:03pm | Report comment
How many CC games has Bakkies Botha played for the Bulls this year and how many NZ games McCaw played for Canterbury? Hardly any is the answer, and despite the Wallabies playing nearly 30 games they have large rest periods in between. Lionel Nallet played a 50 week season last year. There is no comparison and various foreign players coming over to Europe have commented to that effect.
CraigB said | November 1st 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
your irght it doesn’t I just get fired up when people talk over Wallaby underachivement when it is clearly wrong. Sure Australia may have had the jump in terms of getting professionalism right. This if anything resulted in overachievement when measured against available resources. Now the world has caught and probably surpassed us in that area, we are probably now where we should be based on the resources we have. This whole thing about what English rugby is ‘up against’ is a myth propagated to deflect attention from a poor record given the resources available.
Knives Out said | November 1st 2009 @ 10:09am | Report comment
‘This whole thing about what English rugby is ‘up against’ is a myth propagated to deflect attention from a poor record given the resources available.’
That’s simply not true. This is typical Australianism. Firstly the GP is consistently mocked for being kick-orientated, narrow and defensive and full of foreigners, and yet now it should be producing test geniuses. Like I said, come back to me when your captain has played 40+ games a season and when Australia has 27 injuries in one month and when the test team doesn’t get nearly 3 months in camp together. Everything that England has ever achieved has been against the odds. Australia has the perfect set up to produce elite rugby players, and it also has the perfect opportunity for the test coaches to improve players. Australian fans can’t suddenly claim years of superiority against the NH and then suddenly suggest that just because they’re copping beatings of SA and NZ that everything isn’t broke, and that all that matters is their 3rd place ranking. Every team has bad times, just cop it and move on and support your team.
Viscount Crouchback said | November 1st 2009 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Knives is right. Scott Johnson said as much on Ruggamatrix last week. To paraphrase: “We Aussies don’t know how lucky we are until we come up here and see how absurd the schedule is”.
CraigB said | November 1st 2009 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
“Firstly the GP is consistently mocked for being kick-orientated, narrow and defensive and full of foreigners” Sounds allot like Test rugby doesn’t it. Surely a better arena in which to breed test match players.
How about you come back to me when England has only 60 professional starting 15 players to pick from.
I am happy to support the team it is your typical Englishism bleating that the Aussies have underachieved because they haven’t been able to get over the AB’s (as much as it irks me) that is irritating and just plain wrong. I dont suggest for a second that OZ rugby is rosy and I do think we can do better because history shows that, but to suggest underachievement is idiotic.
Knives Out said | November 1st 2009 @ 10:11pm | Report comment
It is only your fellow countrymen claiming underachievement. However, over the past two seasons I think they have underachieved amssively, both in the Super 14 and in the 3N.
“Firstly the GP is consistently mocked for being kick-orientated, narrow and defensive and full of foreigners”
Maybe that sounds like test rugby that Australia and SA likes to play, but that isn’t how the game is played by England, Ireland or Wales.
The hypocrisy is stunning. Following Chris Jack’s comments about how easy English rugby was everybody on The Roar jumped on the bandwagon, and then France beat NZ and all of a sudden the hard European slog is perfect for test rugby. It is ridiculous. Studies show that the maxium amount of games per season to be played is around 25, with large amounts of rest for approrpriate pre-hab and training. What does that sound like? Mm… Super rugby or the GP or T14?
Let’s get this straight: Robbie Deans ha 60 odd players to choose from, and the semi-pros or whatever (D. Dennis). These players exists in the perfect arena to become excellent rugby players. They have the perfect climate, regular games against the best players in the world, and a huge amount of time in the test camp and a lot of rest. Currently the players look utterly horrific. The backs can’t string a basic move together and the forwards are bottle jobs. That isn’t because Australia lacks playing numbers it is because Australia is woefully coached at all levels. Currently there is no way that Ireland, Wales, Argentina, France or England should be close to them and they should be much closer to the top two. iI’d love to see the Australian responses to the French and English context.
Bay35Pablo said | November 1st 2009 @ 6:12pm | Report comment
KO, “Australian fans can’t suddenly claim years of superiority against the NH and then suddenly suggest that just because they’re copping beatings of SA and NZ that everything isn’t broke, and that all that matters is their 3rd place ranking.”
I think you’ll find most of us Aussies are saying there are some fundamental problems being shown here that need fixing. We are in the middle of a cycle, but at the same time there are some real problems in Australian rugby that need fixing, and were never going to get fixed in thr good times for obvious reasons. Question is whether the tweed bozos we have (modelled on yours) will get it right. I’m not holding my breath.
Knives Out said | November 1st 2009 @ 10:13pm | Report comment
I don’t even know what a tweed bozo is and I have no idea why Australia would want to copy anything English. I thought John O’Neill was the saviour?
Matt said | November 1st 2009 @ 8:44am | Report comment
KO do you think there is a similar mathematical difference between each team in the ranking? I.e, is the difference between 6th and 7th the same as between 2nd and 3rd? I think not.
We are constantly told how superior the Nthn hemisphere domestic leagues are. Why then should Nth hemisphere teams feel ok about being ranked below Australia? And why do their supporters feel justified in taking shots at the Wallabies for ONLY being ranked third.
While the Wallabies are not winning their tri-nations matches, and driving us fans nuts, at least they are on the podium.
Knives Out said | November 1st 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Actually we are constantly told just how massively superior the Super competition is. You find me an article from an Australian writer or a European writer asserting that the Top 14, ML and GP is better than the Super 14. What is this, ‘Pick on the Pom’ because the Wallabies are woeful? I don’t feel content that England is 7th but then I know what England has had to work with in recent years and I also know that they are far better than 7th as reflected in their thrashings of France and Argentina and the fact that they have a top level pedigree. What podium is Australia on? Are you attempting to suggest that you can take pride in a 3rd place ranking despite not having won a 3N in years and only reaching the QF of the last WC. I’d like some of what you’re drinking tonight.
Matt said | November 1st 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment
Yeah you’re right 3rd is worse than 7th. (roll eyes)
Anyway, my point was that I think fans can get a bit carried away with the whole beating the AB thing. They are and (probably) always will be one of the top 2 powerhouses of world rugby. To not beat them is disappointing, but not wrist slitting stuff. Now if we get constantly rolled in the Nthn hemisphere, that’s a different matter.
Colin N said | November 1st 2009 @ 9:20am | Report comment
-
Knives Out said | November 1st 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
I’d be intrigued to see where you inferred that anybody had suggested that beign 3rd is worse than 7th.
If my memory serves me correctly then Australia has only had one unbeaten European tour this decade.
Pete said | November 1st 2009 @ 6:10pm | Report comment
Please tell me we’re no begining to think its OK to be beaten by the Saffas and the Kiwis because they are ranked above us.
After the ABs game last night, I thought, oh well, at least they gave it a good shot, it was the ABs after all. Then this morning I thought, “what the hell am I thinking? How the hell will we ever win the 3N, Bledisloe or WC with a she’ll be right, mate” attitude.
I’m in limbo at the moment, not sure which way to go (disapointment or wrist slashing). WE’re ranked 3rd, we have to win the Grand Slam. WE’ll have to wait until the 3N next year for another gauge of where we sit with respect to the RWC …but I’m getting tired of waiting until next year (but never tired of Rugby
)
sheek said | November 1st 2009 @ 9:19am | Report comment
Leftie,
Well typed article….. shame about the Wallabies though.
However, you say they played with more commitment, & that’s something…..
Jack Petro said | November 1st 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
We were disappointing last night. We played well in patches but many things worked against us … also, we were our own worse enemy … again!
Jack Petro said | November 1st 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
Come on Matt .. now that Sir Johnny is back in the red and white, you’ll see the wallabies counter-blasted through the goalposts next week and Knives can say his wonderful best …
There is a BIG difference between NH / SH – starts with physical conditions that develop the type of player needed for the competition. The problem with Australian rugby is numerous and until the Wallabies can be more consistent on the field, then I for one will keep walking out mid-game to make a cuppa!
Knives Out said | November 1st 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
Oh, I see you paid real attention to last seasons tests. Australia scored 15 tries per match and didn’t once kick. Matt Giteau didn’t kick Australia to any victories and Australia definitely were not one of the most conservative teams in the world. Conversely England kicked and mauled and didn’t score one try. Go Wallabies!
westy said | November 1st 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
I have seen Giteau do this far to often. Opening stanza fresh All Black legs impinging on his space yet instead of passing it or taking the tackle with good support he tries to put in an impossible kick that is charged down. Giteau’s ability to have his defensive kicks rebound of the opposition is a problem. He seems to have in his mind i am the only kicker i am going to kick it and he does come heaven or high water notwithstanding any other alternatives.
please have alook this year at some other giteau defensive kicks in the Tri nations . He has quite a high charge down rate. He can kick with both feet but is in fact a relatively slow general field kicker and very measured with a stab follow through.. Under pressure his technique does not hold up nor his ability to find an alternative.
This is OK when you have time or in some slower super 14 games but in test rugby against SA and NZ he is simply targeted when kicking.
The result is a very rushed kick of relatively poor depth or field position or a high risk of a dangerous charge down.
Also to be fair giteua had a centre pairing whose kicking ability was also woeful.
Bluntly the general field kicking of Australian rugby players has deteriorated and defects in technique only come to light under the pressure cooker of premier test rugby.
It was no secret that Australian test rugby union players were generally across the park superior kickers to australian rugbyl eague players.
I find I now have to go to overseas test rugby teams to find superior general field kickers.
Do not start an us against them. I have witnessed in the last ten years a major improvement in field kicking in australian rugby league.Why? they practice constantly. I saw a parramatta SG ball training session for three sessions in aweek. Kicking session with akicking coach for all backs and hookers for an hour before training.The problem is this is at U/18s. repeated every session.
i have witnessed a decline in those same general field kicking skills in Australian rugby union.
My problem is that it is not all due to increased pressure it is also technique for eg. we do not seem to have atest quality half who can consistently box kick well. this is atechnique that requires constant practice.I have serious doubts at what we do at club and super 14 levels
stillmissit said | November 1st 2009 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Exactly Westy – We have only one general field kicker and that is Barnes. I wonder if the guys know how much work and thinking is needed to develop these skills if you ain’t a natural.
Knives Out said | November 1st 2009 @ 10:50am | Report comment
That’s exactly the point hat Johnson made after England’s terrible results last Autumn/Spring.
stillmissit said | November 1st 2009 @ 10:52am | Report comment
Don’t know what to say – I think any comparisons with England coach leave me feeling slightly sick.
Knives Out said | November 1st 2009 @ 10:53am | Report comment
Pardon monsieur?
stillmissit said | November 1st 2009 @ 11:01am | Report comment
Knives mate – I struggle with an answer because we have nobody to fill this void and to say that Johnson also ID’d that point makes me feel we are going backwards fast. Which I dont believe for one moment (well maybe a moment but I overlook it, I put it away from my mind). The pain is too much to bear.
Hoy said | November 2nd 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
I might be very wrong here, but I understand that Barnes was coached at kicking by a former Springbok.
Mick Gold Coast QLD said | November 1st 2009 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
“Giteau’s ability to have his defensive kicks rebound of the opposition is a problem”
Allah be praised, someone else sees what I have been seeing in this record setting income earner.
I watched the 2nd and 3rd replay of the All Blacks first try and that showed a telling story. The All Blacks put on a conventional set of good passes to a conventional wave of blokes backing up. Giteau bloody near broke a nail with his feeble grab at (I think) McCaw, Hynes turned to run after the bus that he’d missed and the kid at the back, having watched Giteau for guidance, imitated him perfectly.
None of it was “arguably the world’s best” at anything or fancifully “threatening to win the Grand Slam” or even “worthy of selection”.
Mick Gold Coast QLD said | November 1st 2009 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
And I have just watched the news to find I am wrong. I have now learnt that the loss was the referee’s fault.
Mind you, Beale could be brought in to stiffen up the backs’ defence!
sheek said | November 1st 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment
Cookee,
The question still stands – sacking the Wallabies’ head coach, ie, Deans, is all we need to do to turn Australian rugby around???
I’m not an apologist for Deans. Just trying to ascertain if he is the only problem with Australian rugby???
stillmissit said | November 1st 2009 @ 10:55am | Report comment
No Sheek he ain’t. In my book we need to develop into a team and there are too many softies in the team. Rocky will set the standard in the forwards and that is where the problems lie, regardless of what LAS thinks. If the backs were squandering great go forward ball then I would agree but we ain’t.
cookee said | November 1st 2009 @ 11:43am | Report comment
sheek,
clearly its not the only thing to improve but keeping the same gives more of the same .
deans is not the solution he is part of the problem;if you consider culture important the stick aint the answer;neurons are.
you are obviously from the school where things need to get worse to get better.
when we continue to lose by slender margins against an average nz team ,wheres the light?
criticising the ref when oconnor gifts nz 7 points and another 7 for dubious try is selective.
deans should treat himself like he treats others;smith .giteau.tuqiri etc
deans pattern continues in aust,kiwis suggest he treated mehrtens,cullen ,umaga etc similarly;
i accept you dont see it this way but suggest you dont have shares in the business?????
sheek said | November 1st 2009 @ 10:56pm | Report comment
No Cookee,
I’m not from “the school where things need to get worse to get better” philosophy. However, I do think plenty of rugby fans, & more appropriately, the game’s administrators, still need to learn this brutal lesson.
I’m intrigued by this notion that Deans is the primary problem of the Wallabies, & that by removing him from the head coaching position, things will automatically improve.
I was hoping, by giving you the opportunity, you might expand on the ‘right’ alternative to Deans, while also providing an insight into other potential problems, if any, with Australian rugby.
hammer said | November 1st 2009 @ 10:48am | Report comment
The fundamental problem is these guys have no incentive to practice to improve – they continue being selected no matter what – hence you have fundamentally flawed players (Mitchell, Burgess, Giteau, Cross, Baxter etc) inhabiting the team – next cabs of the rank are O’Connor. Beale, Cooper,Toomua
that game last night was so 1 sided – that the ABs didn’t need to get out of 2nd gear – despite the hype from foxsports cheer squad – going through the teams player by player there wasn’t 1 Aussie who would have been able to replace their counterpart in the NZ team – when are people going to stop trying to find positives in yet another very poor performance – deans done nothing in 2 years in charge in fact I’d say the team has regressed under him
Harry said | November 1st 2009 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
Spot on Hammer. What about the second row, it is hopeless Chisolm patently isn’t up to it, Horwill has dropped off intensity, Mumm aint up to test standard and the rest all injured. Worst Wallaby side in 30 years, and not getting any better.
stillmissit said | November 1st 2009 @ 10:49am | Report comment
My take on the game was that it had it’s ups and downs.
An up was the commitment to the breakdown from the start. The down was not keeping it going into the second half.
An up was the agression shown by Palu best I have seen from him v AB’s. The down was pulling him off for Smith – Deans should have pulled Pocock for Smith.
An up was the scrum but the down was it was never going to be enough in terms of ball.
An up was the pressure applied, the down was losing the ball in contact.
An up was Genia’s performance, the down was the rubbish the line out gave him to deal with.
Generally – if we allow the AB’s to hold onto our ball in the ruck after we have won and don’t break someone’s finger then more fool us. If we make it obvious ie stamping on the hand etc and get caught, double fool. Waiting for a ref to make a call in that situation is pure idealism and stupidity. If they are slowing it down it is up to the forwards to stop it and not to let it re-occur. Do they think the AB’s would let us hold onto their ball after they have won it? No they don’t, they just deal with it. Whinging to or about the ref is pathetic.
Our lineout was all over the place with guys running up and down and the lift was close to non existent. Moore and TPN’s throwing was not all that bad it was the poor execution from the jumpers and the lifters that let us down. We also seemed to expect that they would not compete on our ball and that is stupid, the game has changed in the last year, SA has seen to that.
We cannot win games without a 5/8 and that is the situation we are in. AAC, Hynes and Ioane were the standouts with AAC taking all honours.
Ryan Cross let Conrad Smith in for his try, I think he is a good S14 player but his positional play is not good enough for test football, pity as I like him but I have given him his last chance and he is out (in my small book anyway).
O’Connor is not a fullback as was shown when AAC went back, things all of a sudden looked more under control. With Barnes at 5/8 and Giteau at I/C (in our dreams) he has to go to the bench.
Smith, contrary to some others here, played very well when he came on with good ground made and excellent positional play, if you couldn’t see that then I don’t know what to say to you. Often he was left on his own, where was Pocock?
I thought that towards the end of the game we were starting to show shades of Wellington with lack of commitment and sea gulling in the forwards. It is very hard to break forwards of the easy sea gulling option once they have adopted it as it is so soft and comfortable. Players fool themselves that they are doing the team a great service by flooding the defence but it is a ticket to a loss.
Rocky Elsom IS a captain, very happy with that choice.
Knives Out said | November 1st 2009 @ 11:03am | Report comment
‘Knives mate – I struggle with an answer because we have nobody to fill this void and to say that Johnson also ID’d that point makes me feel we are going backwards fast. Which I dont believe for one moment (well maybe a moment but I overlook it, I put it away from my mind). The pain is too much to bear.’
My bad, I meant hat Johnson identified the same fault with the young England players he introduced last season, noting perhaps that they hadn’t quite worked out just how much extra work a world class test player will have to put in. I only mentioned it because Australia and England are both comparatively young teams at the moment. Take solace in the fact that you’re not an England rugby league fan. Better times may well lie ahead my friend. That’s what I said to myself last Autumn.
stillmissit said | November 1st 2009 @ 11:16am | Report comment
I cannot swallow this young team stuff. If the guys are young and good enough then they should have nothing to lose and use their god given talent and speed. The fact that the majority feel they should be mollycoddled is just another syndrome of the baby boomers raising kids who need to be protected from life the universe and everything.
At 20 in the backs you should be old enough to win games for your team. Not have to go off and suck your baby bottle, while the adults work out what is psychologically necessary for you and then decide that you need a more considerate, understanding coach.
What a load of bollocks.
Knives Out said | November 1st 2009 @ 10:23pm | Report comment
Well, let me use England as an example again, stillmissit. Last Autumn/Spring they were like Keystone Kops. Johnson took a group of youngsters and said “Play what’s in front of you.” They were rudderless and looked off the pace. Johnson said they needed to come to grips with the extra work they would need to put in. If we consider the starting test team versus Australia last year: Palmer (12 caps), Croft (6), Rees (13), Care (4), Cipriani (5), Monye (2), Flutey (2) and D. Armitage (2), and then contrast that team with the team that played France 5 months later: Vickery (72), Shaw (51), Worsley (72), Ellis (26) and Tindall (59). Johnson had the luxury of incorporating more senior players that were injured during the previous tests. These senior players gave the junior players the framework to achieve. Rugby is an experience based sport, and Deans doesn’t necessarily have that option at the moment due to injuries to Sharpe and Mortlock and his dropping of Smith. I think that young rugby men need guidance and so do young rugby players. The Australian team is in transition. Give the team the GS tour before becoming too despondent. At least there’s not too long until you get another chance to see them play.
stillmissit said | November 2nd 2009 @ 9:03am | Report comment
Yes Knives I agree that we need older players, providing they deserve their spot ie Smith and Mortlock, to give a framework for the younger Wallabies to play to but my point still remains. A young back with speed and gifts (O’Connor) should be able to create havoc in a structured game at least in their first season.
We are not seeing the outrageous, OMG, tries from these youngsters that real class always shows. Maybe the defence is just too strong for any form of expression or maybe they are already hamstrung and looking for someone to help them out.
Christ! we baby boomers have given the world a rubbish structure that encourages incompetence and excuse making.
The Link said | November 1st 2009 @ 11:16am | Report comment
Cross is not a test footballer, particularly in defence. His miss for the first 2nd half NZ try was disgraceful.
AAC and Genia were the goods though and stood up in this company.
RIchie McCaw is the best player of his generation, what a talent.
OldManEmu said | November 1st 2009 @ 11:27am | Report comment
Whataver Cross did, I can only assume it was a poor read in defence with players coming at him, it is not really his fault. He has played 7 years of NRL – the edge defenders, where Cross stood for the most part, are trained to jam up and in -any cut balls or second man plays are picked up by the cover. Cross has had three years to unlearn this and clearly has not. He is asked to defend at 13, the most difficult defensive spot on the field – no wonder he makes blues. We simply do not have the cattle.
Justin said | November 1st 2009 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
I think we do have the cattle (at least to win 35%-40% of games v SA and NZ currently). Problem is the cattle is being played out of position or not being selected.
Brett McKay said | November 1st 2009 @ 11:46am | Report comment
But OME, Cross wasn’t that good a defender for the Roosters anyway – I thought when I watched his first year or two with the Force that I was watching a different guy in defence, because he was quite effective. The last 18 months though has seen a regression…
Bay35Pablo said | November 1st 2009 @ 6:21pm | Report comment
Brett, is the reason for the regression coaching. We seemed to be a lot tighter in defense with Muggo as the defensive coach. The coach and systems have clearly changed, and I can’t say for the better.
cookee said | November 1st 2009 @ 11:51am | Report comment
LINK absolutely mccaw is good and used to be better;now drops balls regularly in games and misses critical tackles (palu)this never used to happen.
the all blacks are not a great team in comparison tp past imho
OldManEmu said | November 1st 2009 @ 11:21am | Report comment
KO
Picking up on some of your comments here, riddle me this. What does the RFU propose if anything to limit the number of foreign players in the GP and lower division teams. I would suggest rather than limitations, foreig players should be eradicated. Itis not like England does not have the players.
I did not bother watching last night’s game – sigh…….
Viscount Crouchback said | November 1st 2009 @ 11:26am | Report comment
Why would the RFU want to lower the standard of the competition?
People have looked into this matter in football and found that there is a positive correlation between the quality of a national team and the number of foreigners playing in the national league.
OldManEmu said | November 1st 2009 @ 11:33am | Report comment
VC – I think that is the point mate. I amnot so sure second rate Aussies and NZeders do improve the competition and certainly they doot improve the England national team – IMHO .
Look at it in reverse – would Australian Rugby benefit from having the pommy equivalent of Ben Daley, Drew Hickey, Brock James, Shaun Berne,Pat Howard, Duncan McRae, Scott Daruda and on and on- all mediocre players at the level – filling Super 15 spots?
Viscount Crouchback said | November 1st 2009 @ 11:46am | Report comment
Presumably these players are better than what is already on offer. Why else would clubs sign them? One must trust in the market. The decline in quality of the GP has been rather stark this season, and it has much to do with the fact that the strong franc has enticed the likes of Bruno, Chabal, Dupuy, Flutey and Kayser – not to mention Wilkinson, Haskell, etc – across the Channel.
Also, the foreign influx means that English youngsters in rugger and soccer nowadays have to be much better than they did a decade ago. This can only be a good thing. There will be fewer English-qualified players available to the selectors, but those that there are will be of a much higher quality. Note the stellar performances of England’s U20s over the past few seasons. This will filter through to the senior national team before too long.
pothale said | November 1st 2009 @ 11:01pm | Report comment
Psst….VC.
Europe changed over to a currency called the euro in 2002, they don’t have francs anymore in France. Sterling has taken a bit of a battering in the last year, rather than the euro is particularly strong at the moment. This will change, and it’ll be interesting to see what the English, France-based lads think of their money then.
TommyM said | November 1st 2009 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
Whoah. Brock James a mediocre player? I admit I haven’t actually seen much of him playing in the Top 14, but apparently he’s the leading point scorer in the comp!
Knives Out said | November 1st 2009 @ 10:30pm | Report comment
I think a lot of players have value, but then some clubs have no choice but to sign foreign players due to test call ups. The GP is a professional business and wins are a necessary adjunct. However, I think a cap would be reasonable, but only to a certain limit (France is putting a scheme in place in the T14). There are 12 clubs after all which is more than enough to choose a test squad from, and as aforementioned some players add value. Countless youngsters have commented on the impact of players like Reihana, Blowers and even Rico Gear. Gear has hardly played but apparently his mentoring has been top notch. Foreign players helped galvanise the professionalism of English rugby, and as a fan it is great to see some players. Incidentally, at the moment quite a few coaches seem far keener to give young English players the chance, which is heartening, but the real issue lies with the EPS agreement. Clubs that produce English players aren’t properly rewarded as the compensation is not doled out proportionately. Hence some clubs have their hand forced.
Brett McKay said | November 1st 2009 @ 11:25am | Report comment
Leftie, another quality piece as usual. I too was impressed with the effort, and the game as a whole, but that didn’t stop me screaming at the plasma several times during the evening!! I too thought the back three were good, and O’Connor and Ashley-Cooper both looked better in their “natural” poistions. Ioane was super impressive for his first run since 2003, or whenever it was he last played.
A couple of quick questions then:
- how many lost lineout throws should it take for a team to realise that throwing to the back jumper is not such a good idea??
- has the bloke in 13 finally played himself out of Wallaby colours for good now? How many times can the same defensive mis-reads be put up with? and
- how good was it to see a ref take control of proceedings in awarding Hynes’ try? Whether it was or wasn’t a try doesn’t matter, Lawrence should be applauded for hurrying up what was quickly becoming a farce.
hammer said | November 1st 2009 @ 11:53am | Report comment
Well Brett I actually thought it was a very poor decision – fisrtly from the TMO and then once Lawerence became exasperated he needed to award no try – as it was obviously inconclusive – but it made the game closer so the crowd renained involved
Brett McKay said | November 1st 2009 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
Hammer, I don’t disagree with you about the conclusiveness of the replays, but at one point he could be heard telling the touchie-cum-translator to tell the TMO not to worry about the grounding, just if he got there. So he obviously had an opinion that he did get the ball on the line, but the TMO was taking an eternity to confirm it.
hammer said | November 1st 2009 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
Well no he obviously had some whether he made it – as did I from the replays and as did our biased mates commentating – if anybody was to jump in with a quick claim it would be those clowns – it simply should not have been given – if Lawrence had no doubt he wouldn’t have gone upstairs
in the end it made zero difference – the wallabies were poor across the park – but at least Deans can sing the national song now – well done robbie something you’re better than Henry at
stillmissit said | November 1st 2009 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
Brett the TMO had:
‘FAXED HO AND WAS AWAITING A REPLY _ _ _ ‘
sorry mate its an old sales managers joke!
Brett McKay said | November 1st 2009 @ 7:35pm | Report comment
Stillmissit will be appearing all week
ohtani's jacket said | November 1st 2009 @ 8:47pm | Report comment
I don’t know why they bother with a TMO. Why not do it American style and just have the ref watch a television monitor? There was a big screen right above me and there is no way on God’s green astroturf that Hynes scored that try.
Justin said | November 1st 2009 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
Brett – Cross will get a dozen chances if Deans past persistence with under performers is anything to go by…
kingplaymaker said | November 1st 2009 @ 11:30am | Report comment
Brett for the lineout Vickerman and Mcmenniman are needed, and Gasnier for 13. Get them for next year and the problems are almost solved (except one more good wing is needed too).
OldManEmu said | November 1st 2009 @ 11:35am | Report comment
The messiah complex is well and truly alive in Aust Rugby
Brett McKay said | November 1st 2009 @ 11:38am | Report comment
KPM, even with Vickerman and McMeniman, someone still has to hit the target. I always thought Moore was a class above Polata-Nau in the throwing stakes, but last night neither looked capable of hitting the proverbial barn door with a frozen pea.
And I’ll just politely disagree with you about Gasnier. He’s still hovering between wing and centre for Stade, and with the likes of Ashley-Cooper, Ioane, T.Smith, Horne, and even a carefully managed Mortlock, there’s plenty of better options for 13. And I even like Gasnier as a footballer…
kingplaymaker said | November 1st 2009 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
Brett it’s true the target needs hitting. Maybe with better locks though, more throws would be won, so the thrower would be more confident and hence hit the target more.
If Gasnier’s not doing all he should be at Stade I think that’s the crazy management’s fault. I identify him as he perhaps he has superior game-breaking talent to the others available (Ioane as the only good wing will surely stay there).
I agree that outside-centre isn’t the biggest problem though with AAC improving so much.
Australia needs two good locks (Vickerman and Mcmenniman), a full-back and wing. Then they’ll have a world-class team from 1-15 and be capable of beating NZ and SA. That’s really all they’re lacking. Look at the huge difference an in-form Palu and Ioane made: i.e. two more good players. Add four to that, plugging every position of weakness, and it’s a whole team.
TommyM said | November 1st 2009 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
MMM is broken. He’ll surely play out his career in Japan where he can maximise his earnings and minimise the damage he does his body.
kingplaymaker said | November 1st 2009 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
Tommy I think he’d abandon that if the ARU increased their offer. He’s only 25.
Dean Pantio said | November 1st 2009 @ 6:33pm | Report comment
He’d break a leg getting on the plane back.
Brett McKay said | November 1st 2009 @ 12:28pm | Report comment
KPM, Moore and Polata-Nau still had four decent quality jumpers to aim at – including one each that are/were S14 team-mates – yet the throws were still off. Just as bad though was the continual calling to throw to the back, giving the ABs time to compete and get up first (and win). Compare that with NZ at one stage going into a four-man lineout with only one jumper, yet Australia didn’t contest it.
And regardless of why Gasnier still hasn’t nailed down a spot for Stade, the fact remains he still hasn’t nailed down a spot. Until he does – and until he plays in Australia – he’s not really even an option…
kingplaymaker said | November 1st 2009 @ 12:43pm | Report comment
Brett point taken on the throws: as the AB line-out isn’t as intimidating as the SA one there’s little excuse for nerves.
I’ve seen some pretty amazing stuff from Gasnier for Stade: however, it’s not important now because as you said there are good outside centres. As apparently the person teaching him doesn’t speak English there may be problems there wouldn’t be in Australia.
What’s needed are 4, 5, 14, 15
OldManEmu said | November 1st 2009 @ 7:05pm | Report comment
MMM is a number 6 every day of the week and IMHO more than a match for Elsom
But yes sadly he has seriously badinjury karma the poor bugger – Sapporo rather than XXXX for the next few years for Hugh I am afraid
Pete said | November 1st 2009 @ 6:35pm | Report comment
If we say that Leaguies such as Tahu and Cross struggle with the defensive requirements of the Centres, how will Gas fare better?
In saying that, iI would like to see him in Super Rugby to see how well he is going. I loved watching his skills for the Dragons.
Brett McKay said | November 1st 2009 @ 11:31am | Report comment
meant to add above – where does Sivivatu’s try rank among the best this year?? Outstanding…
Lee said | November 1st 2009 @ 11:36am | Report comment
Anyone still bemoaning the state of world rugby only needs to look as far as the Currie Cup final last night to see that the “problems” with th games rules are non-existent. A final match consisting of 60 points, made up in tries, penalties and drop goals, filled with physical tough tackles, solid defence and a sold out crowd of 50000+ in a country that is consantly bemoaned for playing boring rugby.
Compared with the “dead rubber” last night in which the teams were supposed to do nothing but through the ball around, it shows one thing….the lost passion for rugby in Australia and to a much lesser extent NZ(see the crowds at the ANZ Cup semis) has nothing to do with the rules but everything to do with the state of their teams and their results in internationals and super rugby this year.
Hard to say that the rules are the problem now(on the back of the Sx Nations this year, the Lions series and the Super 14 and Currie Cup finals), seems more likely that it is the teams who plays mentality when they walk on the field.
Pete said | November 1st 2009 @ 6:48pm | Report comment
Lee, the state of World Rugby is dire …..simply because we (Oz) are not winning. When we start winning again, the “world’ will be rosey again
I watch the CC Final last night, whilst flicking between the RL game OZ vs. England. Agreed that CC final was exciting.. and what an atmosphere! As much as I want Super Rugby to do well I hope it doesn’t infringe too much on the CC.
To the Oz`Roarers… and I’m going to contradict my comment to Kingplaymaker above about Leaguies playing in the centres… but whilst watching Inglis in the RL game last night I couldn’t help but think how good it would have been having him at 13 in the Wallabies colours. Admittedly he was put into gaps by the brilliant passing of Lockyer and Thurston, who had both space and time, but also his strength in defence was amazing. He mistimed a tackle and bounced to the ground held onto the guy with his fingers tips and pull the guy back and buried him into the earth… Just pure strength, frightening…
Pete said | November 1st 2009 @ 7:04pm | Report comment
The run down on Inglis from last night. By the way the commentors during last nights RL game said this Kangeroos side is the best National football team in the histroy of the 2 codes… I did laugh… and then I wished Inglis was a Wallaby
http://au.sports.yahoo.com/nrl/news/article/-/6414860/sheens-puts-inglis-elite-company
OldManEmu said | November 1st 2009 @ 7:07pm | Report comment
But Pete there is a world of difference between being a good tackler and being good defender
danwighton said | November 1st 2009 @ 7:31pm | Report comment
If RL didnt exist in Aus, Australia would dominate union like they dominate league. I dont think anyone could reasonably dispute that statement.
It is a credit to Australian rugby union that the wallabies can do as well as they have over the years when the game has traditionally been played in two states, without a club competition and playing second fiddle to the NRL.
sheek said | November 2nd 2009 @ 8:58am | Report comment
This is a terribly simplistic view.
In the brief decade before league split from union in Australia (1899-1908), it was already apparent we were unable to produce the same forward power as our Kiwi cousins.
So our forward weakness, especially in the tight forwards, is a historical one. And would have still existed more often than not, had there been just one rugby code.
Keep in mind also, some of those tough league forwards would not have been suited to union. Either too light for prop, or too short for second row. However, I do agree the Wallabies would have been much stronger, without being the constant world-beaters you suggest.
Keep in mind also (again), the Kangaroos won series against Great Britain in 1911/12 (away) & 1920 (home), then had to wait until 1950 (home) for their next series win. Their next away win wasn’t until 1963/64.
Since 1973, GB has never beaten Australia in a 3 test series. However, it wasn’t until about the mid-80s (I think) that the Kangaroos finally went into the black on the win-loss register against the GB Lions.
Maybe if RU was the national game & played in every state, we might enjoy the same historical success as cricket.
But as I said at the very top, it’s easier to say all these things, than it is to prove them.
sheek said | November 2nd 2009 @ 8:39am | Report comment
I love the way Greg Inglis plays & I wish, how I wish, the wallabies had a few stars like him.
But, good as he is, would he successfully make the transition? In RL, his team mates try to get the ball to him as often as possible. RU is too conservative to provide him the same opportunities (think Tuqiri, Tahu, Sailor, Rogers).
Okay, GI is better than those guys, but RU hardly went out of its way to get the best out of these players after paying a fortune to bring them across.
Another point. In RL, Inglis is a specialist left field centre. In RU, he might be asked to play outside centre. The dynamics are entirely different. Would he be able to adjust quickly enough for his play to be instinctive?
Better for RU to find their own GIs early & mould them early. Every sport needs its heroes & currently, Australian rugby has too few, far too few of them.
OldManEmu said | November 2nd 2009 @ 9:17am | Report comment
Here here
Scotty Staniforth agrees with you
Hermin said | November 2nd 2009 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Were the Boks involved in the CC final?
Lee said | November 2nd 2009 @ 11:03am | Report comment
Yip…delayed sending the teams on the overseas tour so that they could play in the final
The way it is! said | November 1st 2009 @ 11:37am | Report comment
I’m with you Cookee 100%. I have believed it from the very start, to have a none national, coaching a national side is a joke and to see Dingo seeing the National Athem made me cringe. I agree that Smith blew it when he came on as he got stripped of that ball right when we needed that next phrase plus the time here hesitated at a ruck when he should have trucked it forward like a number 8 shold?. It’s a simple game rugby and some commentators here like to make out that it’s rocket science at times.
The Wallabies yet again produced too many errors at inappropriate times ie that attempt at cover tackle from a fullback (O’Connor) was school boy stuff it should have been made!. Right then the match was loss and if you going to win games of rugby this can’t happen.
The AB kicked over penalty goal after penalty goal due to our errors and as for our backline it just doesn’t flow as it should, they stand to flat in 1st phrase at times. Overall our skill level doesn’t match AB’s as demonstrated by their captains double handling in one of their tries.
We will win in the NH but only because the opposition will be of a poorer standard which will allow the wallabies to get away with an erratic 80 minutes of rugby.
fred said | November 1st 2009 @ 10:31pm | Report comment
yes WAY YOURE ONTO IT
pothale said | November 1st 2009 @ 11:05pm | Report comment
“We will win in the NH but only because the opposition will be of a poorer standard which will allow the wallabies to get away with an erratic 80 minutes of rugby.”
Eh – have you actually watched France, Wales or Ireland play this year?
Knives Out said | November 1st 2009 @ 11:17pm | Report comment
Wales definitely didn’t outclass Australia this time last year. There’s no two ways about it.
sheek said | November 2nd 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
Yep,
That’s all we need to do – replace Deans with a fair dinkum Aussie – & everything will be just gingy-peachy!
Tell me it’s a con….. please…..
westy said | November 1st 2009 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
Lee this is the problem most of us do not get to see this .
Lee said | November 1st 2009 @ 3:44pm | Report comment
I think it is the problem with rugby in Australia, due to its place in the popularity stakes. If the Australian people saw a game like the CC final yesterday or like the Lions series, they would understand why countries like NZ and SA love rugby. The problem in Aus at the moment is that the players arn’t there, it’s got nohing to do with rules, when you see a game lke the ABs Wallabies last night and see all the dropped balls from the Wallabies every time they attack, your first reaction is to turn it off.
The captain of the Wallabies – a so called world class player – has shown in the last 2 games his handling skills leave a bit to be desired. At the end of the day this is not the coaches problem, when a player reaches ‘international’ level he should be able to take a pass 99% of the time even when it is at his head.
The easist/quickest way the Walabies will return as a force to rugby union and increase the value of their ‘product’ will be when it has the players and wins consistently against the ABs(and to a lesser extent the Boks) -this means that the ARU NEEDS to BUY good players – be they league players or whatever, they need to make sure that their young super stars in the making do not get taken by other codes or other countries. Rule changes are a fools errand because there is no way in hell that all countries will agree with a rightly or wrongly perceived Australasion conspiracy to change the laws.
Yikes said | November 1st 2009 @ 5:26pm | Report comment
Well, I think I agree with just about everything you’ve written, Lee!
The CC final was a great game. I think when the Wallabies are winning, perceived issues with the game as a whole (as opposed to the Wallabies’ shortcomings in particular) will be lessened. When will that day come, though?
I can only hope the All Blacks have peaked in between World Cups. Again. (Joke!)
fred said | November 1st 2009 @ 10:33pm | Report comment
YIKES YOUR FAVOURITE “WAITING FOR GODOT” DEANS
sheek said | November 2nd 2009 @ 8:46am | Report comment
Yikes,
It was embarrassing enough to read Aussie Roarers after the win against the Boks. You could have been mistaken for thinking we had just won the WC.
As it turned out, one swallow doesn’t make a summer. Australian rugby is in the pits, & a few wins by the Wallabies will only mask those myriad problems.
I think now, Australian rugby is “paying” for winning two WCs in the 90s. Back then people said, we didn’t need to change, because we had won two WCs under the present system (then).
This attitude of not needing to change our structures remains prevalent today. We get seduced by short-term success at the expense of long-term solutions.
Yikes said | November 2nd 2009 @ 8:56am | Report comment
You (and fred, although perhaps only fred knows what fred is saying) seem to have missed my point. I am not talking about the structures of domestic rugby in Aus, I am saying the complaints about the nature of the game (being boring, kick-ridden, etc) would be alleviated somewhat by success from the Wallabies.
There were plenty of great CC and ANZC games played under the current Laws. Plenty of duds too, but that happens under any set of Laws.
sheek said | November 2nd 2009 @ 9:06am | Report comment
Yikes,
Actually there are problems with the game also. In the recent BC match, there were 2 tries to one, which is okay.
But there were 6 penalty goals to 4. Now that’s a problem.
But yeah, I get your point. However, back in 1999, the Wallabies won the WC final 35-12 (two tries to nothing). There were also 7 penalty goals to 4.
The sad thing is the Wallabies had a backline to blow most oppositions to shreds, but they didn’t play it that way. That comes back to the way the game is structured.
True Tah said | November 2nd 2009 @ 8:53am | Report comment
Yikes
the problem is that a successful national team is only the icing on the cake. What NZ,SA,France,UK understand is the need for a vibrant domestic competition…that way interest will remain when the national team may not be faring so well.
The ARU should be trying to get Currie Cup/Air New Zealand Cup on free to air in Australia. It is great rugby, played with passion and heart. Unfortunately there is a tendency for those in Australian rugby to look down on South African rugby and perceive it as boring, and this is personified by the likes of Greg Martin (how does this guy get a gig, for dropping a pass from Campo) and Kearns…Im probably going to get roasted for suggesting this, but maybe having a South African, Welsh or NZ (not Mexted) accent for our commentary would do us the world of good.
Bay35Pablo said | November 1st 2009 @ 8:46pm | Report comment
Once again, we are missing that quality 2nd rower. Mumm is a 6 not a 4 or 5.
I’m not saying get back Vicks (although that would be nice), but the number of injuries at 2nd row has cruelled us this year. Kimlin or Caldwell fronting up would have made some difference.
What happened to the days when we seemed to have class 2nd rowers coming out our ears?
Knives Out said | November 1st 2009 @ 10:46pm | Report comment
A lot of countries lack good locks. I think it’s the coaching concept that players must be able to do a bit of everything a opposed to encouraging the traditional 4 and 5.
Bay35Pablo said | November 2nd 2009 @ 9:04am | Report comment
KO, agreed. This obsession with players being utilities is destroying the specialists in some areas. The back 3 or 5, and the locks and loosies seem to be expected to cover too many spots, meaning they play them all averagely rather than one well.
Australia is a case in point with the backs. Where is our specialist full back? Deans picking O’Connor out of position doesn’t help. Bring back Cameron Shepherd!!!!
stillmissit said | November 2nd 2009 @ 9:14am | Report comment
Guys we are all in the choir here. This is one of those REALLY stupid ideas that future coaches will laugh about.
stillmissit said | November 2nd 2009 @ 9:18am | Report comment
KO/B35 – Another point is what a mess we are making of AAC. He should be lined up as the next 13 for Australia but he doesnt know if he is Arthur or Martha. His game on Saturday showed he is a far better full back than O’Connor who should be learning his trade on the wing before moving to I/C in a couple of seasons at ripe age of 21!!!!
Knives Out said | November 2nd 2009 @ 10:35am | Report comment
AAC is potentially a wonderful 13.
stillmissit said | November 2nd 2009 @ 9:12am | Report comment
KO and Bay35 – We have been short of locks, sorry about the pun, for most of my 30 years watching the Wallabies. I think we are in an OK state at the moment if not for injuries. Vickerman and Eales are the standout locks over my time and there have been a lot that have been Sharpish or Shawish ie either too gutless or plenty of guts but too short.
We, subject to injuries, should be OK come RWC time.
Knives Out said | November 2nd 2009 @ 9:17am | Report comment
I can’t match your rugby history, stillmissit, but it is definitely an accelerating trend.
stillmissit said | November 2nd 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
KO- as an ex one I feel very frustrated at times. The times of the great locks like Victor Matfield are all too rare and nearly non-existent in Australia. When you think one of our best ever was an import.
Instead of all this rubbish about Tuquiri and Sailor and now Gasnier and Inglis, we should have kept Brad Thorn in the country. It would have made a much bigger impact on the Wallaby team.
Knives Out said | November 2nd 2009 @ 10:34am | Report comment
A player of Matfield’s genius is generational. You had Eales and now SA has Matfield. England had Johnson and now they don’t. Swings and roundabouts I suppose. You once had Nick Stiles and now you have Benn Robinson, if you see my point. I played lock for 20 minutes once. I didn’t like it.
stillmissit said | November 2nd 2009 @ 10:41am | Report comment
KO – I played 11 years at it and always wanted to be a No 8. Such is life. What position do you play now?
Knives Out said | November 2nd 2009 @ 8:57pm | Report comment
I haven’t played in a good year, stillmissit. I played at 9 and then moved to 7 during my mid-teens, but having been not good enough to progress beyond county and academy level I decided to hit the gym initially to bulk up but then I decided that I preferred that to rugby. I took a gap year between school and university and having saved up enough money from working for 9 months I decided to try and see if I could get near professional level. I was quite obsessive in my approach and kind of burned out my enthusiasm, I suppose. I always had problems with my wrists sub-luxing, rotator cuff and thumb problems and come 21 I didn’t have enough time so I started boxing regularly instead. I played a handful of games last year but just for fitness, and truth be told I don’t miss it that much. I have considered getting really serious again and trying a shift to hooker, but I’m not sure if I fancy months of hamstring, core, back and neck work in the gym.
stillmissit said | November 3rd 2009 @ 7:08am | Report comment
Knives your story is played out in Australia regularly these days.
I used to be involved with one of the premier clubs and the number of young guys with talent who would start to get serious injury in their late teens is alarming particularly if they were involved with the academy. I think it is due to the amount of muscle that is developed and lack of development of the ligaments to support the joints and the extra impact of the weight.
It sort of comes down to a few areas. Knees, always been there due to hard pitches in OZ but seems a lot more these days. Hamstrings and shoulders – the numbers of young guys with this problem is unbelievable.
A young friend of my partners boys has just played a professional year in England and then gets a serious shoulder injury here, he has just gone in for a reconstruction and decided to give rugby away for a couple of years and play something else.
Seems a pity to me.
LeftArmSpinner said | November 2nd 2009 @ 10:16pm | Report comment
SMI and KO, As the author, I checked in tonight to see where the discussion had gone because the posts had gone up by about 50.
Lo and Behold, I find that an article entitled “Where have all the backline plays gone??” I find two slaggy old forwards waxing unlyrically about what if’s. As author, I ask you to take your forwards reminiscing to another place. This is for backs, the handsome, clever ones that play rugby using there sublime phyiscal and ball skills and then pull the good looking girls.
Jokes aside, good to see that discussion is alive and well on the Roar!!!!!
As for Number 8, every season I would be put in there, only to protest and return to fullback. Less tackling, more running and kept my good looks protected for the girls!!!!!
stillmissit said | November 3rd 2009 @ 6:54am | Report comment
LAS this is typical of you brylcream brigade. You are so busy looking in your hand mirror you miss not only the last pass with the line open but also the content.
Knives is in his early 20’s but unfortunately I do fit your description perfectly.
I used to wait in the clubhouse drinking quietly until you Nancy boys all got excited talking to one another and combing your (always) blonde hair, then I would make a date with your very bored girlfriend, who was only really there to try to convince the rest of the club that you were straight.
Rugby is a game for forwards and even good (read rare) back plays are only there as a bit of fluff on the back of a lot of work by the real rugby players.
The solution to rugby is to make it a game of 8 players.
Knives Out said | November 3rd 2009 @ 6:59am | Report comment
‘The solution to rugby is to make it a game of 8 players.’
That would certainly be better viewing than 7s.
stillmissit said | November 3rd 2009 @ 7:17am | Report comment
Of course and real rucking could be brought back. We could really entertain with rolling mauls, 20m shoves in scrums and push over tries, lineouts with locks fired into the air by 6′ 5″ specialist lifters,the breakaways doing most of the try scoring and fighting for the turnover.
It could be heaven, a world sans backs and more importantly sans whinging!!
sheek said | November 3rd 2009 @ 7:36am | Report comment
I’m presuming that’s the 8 forwards, & no backs!
As an old ex-forward myself, I would like that.
BTW, I was also a frustrated eightman who ended up playing lock!
stillmissit said | November 3rd 2009 @ 7:44am | Report comment
Of course Sheek. Let the good times roll.
I want to meet my old coaches who, because I was big kept me from my DESTINY WITH GREATNESS!
At least at this distance from reality it seems like that.
Knives Out said | November 3rd 2009 @ 7:37am | Report comment
Sounds like Springbok heaven.
Knives Out said | November 3rd 2009 @ 7:35am | Report comment
I only stood out at rugby union because I played basketball, stillmissit. It was a wonderful accelerator and I would suggest to any young budding rugby players that they give the game a trick. It’s good for explosiveness, fitness, timing and handling. Because of that I never had a youth filled with rugby so when I developed and played alongside better players I found it hard to cope with the intensity of young men who had been obsessed about turning pro since their early teens. Therefore to combat that I turned to the gym. Having not been on a weights programme at an early age I trained too much – twice a day, and basically just doing big muscle lifts: deadlift, squat, shoulder press etc. What I did learn at academy training I just ignored, seeking to get bigger. Unsurprisingly I suffered joint problems and general wear and tear. I didn’t know anything about pre-hab work, extensive stretching, yoga.. that sort of thing, and I just burned out. My diet was pretty mediocre too. I think my situation sums up English youth rugby. There are no support systems. I played in what is arguably the toughest schools group and quite a few of my peers now play pro, and yet there was no adequate guidance from either my school or my county. It’s a bizarre situation. English rugby is so far behind the 8 ball at youth level it is unbelievable. And now like you say I don’t bother anymore, which is a shame.
stillmissit said | November 3rd 2009 @ 7:52am | Report comment
Having watched it close up I get the feeling that for all the talk about caring for players etc. The guys running these elite institutions are users who just bring in large numbers of talented youngsters and hope that a couple of them will stand out and more importantly survive.
It is a dumb numbers game and all these boys are pumped to the max as there is an obsession with bulk and then they breakdown physically and go back to club or sometimes like you give it away.
It is stupid and wasteful. Young players should be the size they naturally are and develop their rugby from this point. There are many examples of small guys outplaying bigger heavier players, it is almost as stupid as playing all players all over the park.
Maybe they will put AAC into the lock position?????? we are short there.
Knives Out said | November 3rd 2009 @ 8:11am | Report comment
Spot on. The obsession was always with size and I can see the same pattern unfolding with teenagers in the gym I currently use.
LeftArmSpinner said | November 4th 2009 @ 7:02am | Report comment
gentlemen, so cute. i love being reminded of the NUmber 8. I was playing in England when I cam across the NUmber 8. I called that position Lock!!!
anyway, Richmond park, London, playing for Roslyn Park, the opposition Number 8 takes the ball off the back of the first scrum, goes down the short blind side, comes to our half back, and nonchalantly plans to just go through him. After all, he is a Number 8. The half back, smashes him into touch!!!! The half back was playing out of position and had just arrived in London as the incumbent 7 for the Australian Universities team. Well, that shut the Number 8 up. It was more than a tackle to the Number 8, it was a slap across his face!!! Nothing as precious as that in the backs.
stillmissit said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:36am | Report comment
LAS – Was this you in the note above ie the 7 from Australian Uni team? If yes you are part of the discussion if you were watching fearfully from fullback you are not allowed in.
I played in SA for 2 years and our captain Dave (openside breakaway), was playing against a madman that you come up against occasionally in rugby. This guy had kicked several of our players in the rucks, one in the head and opened him up. At half time one of the senior props said to our captain ‘He is your man, fix him up’ to which our captain said ‘I have never fixed anyone in my life’ ‘Never mind about that he is yours’ was the reply.
Our captain went out and in the first scrum with the ref on the other side kicked the nutter in the head during the scrum. He produced a gash about 4″ long across his forehead and up into his skull, then Dave had to go off the field and stitch him up. He said he would ‘Never do anything like that again’. We all thought he had done the world a good service.
Armchair-critic said | November 4th 2009 @ 6:30pm | Report comment
LAS you need to take a look at the match highlights from the Gloucester game at rugby.com.au
Unless the ARU has employed some sort of technical guru to alter the tapes i am certain i saw the Wallabies prodcue some backline moves!!
And they resulted in tries from set piece…. ahh beautiful