Where have all the backline plays gone?
By LeftArmSpinner, 1 Nov 2009 LeftArmSpinner is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Adam Ashley-Cooper, All Blacks, robbie deans, Rugby Union, wallabies
154 Have your say
Related coverage
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.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (178)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (171)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Wales and France the early stars of the Six Nations (48)
- Wales’ Davies banned for ‘tip tackle’ (2)
- Graham Henry’s rugby future confirmed (12)
- Barnes to lead Waratahs in first hitout
- Harris and Lucas in Reds No.10 audition (3)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (18)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- David Pocock: a skipper my Force teammates will fight for (21)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (18)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (16)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- Adam Ashley-Cooper, All Blacks, robbie deans, Rugby Union, wallabies

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…..