Wallabies All Black-ed in a tough Test in Tokyo
By Spiro Zavos, 2 Nov 2009 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- All Blacks, Bledisloe Cup, mark lawrence, New Zealand, Peter Hynes, Rugby Union, wallabies
145 Have your say
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Wallabies news
- New Zealand All Blacks news
- 2011 Wallabies squad news
- Wallabies v All Blacks news
Australia's James O'Connor, center, tries to break through the tackle of New Zealand All Blacks during the Bledisloe Cup rugby test at the National Olympic Stadium in Tokyo, Saturday, Oct. 31, 2009. All Blacks won the test, 32-19. (AP Photo/Shuji Kajiyama)
The scoreline of 32 – 19 to the All Blacks against the Wallabies in Toyko did not give justice to how tough this Test was for New Zealand to win. The All Blacks scored two tries to one, admittedly. And the Peter Hynes try was awarded by Mark Lawrence, the South African referee when he got tired (it seemed) of waiting for the video referee to make his call.
But for some minutes after this controversial try the Wallabies were camped on the All Blacks tryline. With Sitiveni Sivivatu off the field with a yellow card (which probably should have been red) for one of the most blatant tackles of a catcher in the air, the All Blacks seven-man scrum was being pushed around by the Wallabies.
Wycliff Palu almost got across from one 5m scrum. Then the Wallabies made a series of hit-ups metres out from the All Blacks try line. Why they didn’t go back to Hynes unmarked on the wing is a mystery. But a hit-up went wrong. Andrew Hore snaffled the ball in the maul, and the danger was over.
The Wallabies started strongly with Will Genia making a long break out of defence and then muffing his pass to Adam Ashley-Cooper for the flyer to run in a try. Matt Giteau kicked two penalties to ram home the advantage of the good start.
Then the All Blacks got their game going and took the score to 10 – 6, with a penalty and conversion from Daniel Carter and a brilliant try by Sivivatu in which Riche McCaw handled and passed a couple of times.
Then Carter kicked another penalty, and then came the Hynes try.
I’ve listed these movements in the score line to make the point that the game was there for the taking by the Wallabies, if they had rammed home their advantage of the extra player and extreme field position.
As with the Test in Wellington, the All Blacks came back strongly in the second half scoring 19 points which included another splendid try to Conrad Smith, and a conversion and four more penalties to Carter.
The Wallabies kicked a penalty which was slightly better than the no-scoring second half ‘achieved’ at Wellington.
Something needs to be done about these second collapses by the Wallabies.
In three of the four losses to the All Blacks, they have been ahead at half-time. When Rod Macqueen coached the Wallabies they lost, from memory, only one Test after they were leading at half time. The All Blacks have a similar sort of record.
Clive Woodward told me that when he started coaching England he had a similar problem to that of Deans, with his side invariably going down to losses after being ahead at half-time. The strong first half performances were not matched with a similar strong performance in the second half. His solution was to make his players put on new jerseys and shorts at half time.
The thinking behind this was in the fresh kit the players would believe the psychology that they were starting the second half as if it were the first half. It’s history now that this psychological ploy worked for Woodward and England. In 2007 particularly, especially in the Rugby World Cup tournament, England closed out the matches in which it established a lead, even if it had to wait until the last minute of extra time to do so against the Wallabies in the final.
So I offer this idea (or more accurately, Woodward’s idea) to Deans to consider.
It seems to me, too, that the psychology of the new kit worked in 2007 because Woodward’s pack had become an experienced, tough, resilient and intense set of forwards. This is not what the Wallaby pack is right now. The younger forwards like Benn Robinson and David Pocock were the best in the pack against the All Blacks. The second row was not strong and dominant. In fact it was weak in the lineouts. And the front row, even with Robinson, does not make much of an impact in the rucks and mauls.
As this pack is the best that Deans has right now, he has to hope that they acquire the physical power and the mongrel to take their play to real Test match standards.
Having said this, it is true that this was a much better performance by the Wallabies than the defeatist shambles they offered at Wellington.
They pushed the All Blacks hard throughout the match. At the end of the match when there was a remote chance of snatching a win with two converted tries, they found holes with strong running from Ashley-Cooper, Digby Ione (a strong performance throughout) and James O’Connor.
The execution was just not there. And this underlines another aspect of this current Wallabies side. They are not clinical in the manner of the great sides of the past.
In this Test they had the chance to score four or five times. And each time, somehow, the chance was blown. Again, the backs like the forwards have got to be more ruthless in taking their chances.
It is a mental thing as much as a physical thing. You get the impression that this Wallaby side is too conscious of all the side issues that go on during a match. You hear them yelling out all the time, for instance, trying to alert the referee to an offside or a knock-on.
You never hear McCaw doing this, though. He just thunders around the paddock with a single-minded pursuit of the ball, making his tackles, his catches, his passes and his runs. The All Blacks in general tend towards this style of silent killers.
Another type of rugby call that is getting to me comes from the two commentary teams on Channel 7 and Fox Sports.
I watched both coverages of the Test and the thing that stood out for me was the incessant second-guessing of the referee by Gordon Bray (who has become too partisan), Tim Horan and Dan Crowley of Channel 7, and Phil Kearns and Greg Martin on Fox Sports. Greg Clarke, to his credit, just called the game and left the refereeing to the referee.
As I watched with my son, we both agreed that one of the main reason why rugby supporters have become dissatisfied with rugby this season can be attributed to the woeful television commentaries. Viewers are getting an earful of the commentators bagging the laws, the game, the referee and opposition players.
No wonder viewers believe that rugby league, say, is providing a better spectacle. It is not really the better spectacle at work but much better and more positive commentary.
On neither channel, for instance, was the tension and the high skills displayed by both sides brought out. Nor was there much (any?) analysis of what was happening.
Greg Martin mentioned once that the Wallabies should have moved the ball out to an un-marked Hynes towards the end of the first half. But there was no analysis, however, on how the Wallabies had cleverly directed play to Sivivatu’s wing while he was off the field.
This was, in fact, a terrific Test match.
The play went up and down the field with attack and counter-attack. The lead changed hands a number of time. There was some searing runs and attacks and a couple of clever ensemble tries.
Before the Test I was sceptical of the Wallabies’ chances of going close to their Grand Slam. We will know this time next week whether the quest is on target. But I expect it will be. If the Wallabies can play with the toughness they displayed against what is now a very good All Blacks side, they should beat England.
This means, though, that the Wallabies have to put two strong performances together in successive Tests, which is something they’ve found impossible to do this season.
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.
- Explore:
- All Blacks, Bledisloe Cup, mark lawrence, New Zealand, Peter Hynes, Rugby Union, wallabies

Lee said | November 2nd 2009 @ 6:05am | Report comment
“Sivivatu off the field with a yellow card (which probably should have been red) for one of the most blatant tackles of a catcher in the air, ”
Definately, the most blatant since Giteaus on Du Preez : )
I really don’t think this was tough for the ABs to win, they never seemed to have to click out of second gear in the second half – not hard to win a game when the opposition players lack basic skills like catching and passing.
Will completely agree with you in regards to the commentary – I just agreed with Spiro on something – wow next I’ll agree with Stephen Jones.
Best game of the weekend was the Currie Cup final – tries, penalties and drop goals all in front of a crowd of 50,000+ passionate fans.
Hobart said | November 2nd 2009 @ 6:38am | Report comment
Re the second half letdown – must a team leave the field? Is it a law? If not, maybe the Wallabies could do a reverse of Clive’s ploy and stay on the field – as was once the case – suck on a slice of orange, listen to their coach advise them, then, at the whistle, get back into the game as if they’d never left it.
Frank O'Keeffe said | November 2nd 2009 @ 7:36am | Report comment
Spiro,
Respectfully, I have to say I’ve never disagreed with one of your columns so much. New Zealand were far superior in that game and really rammed that home in the 2nd half.
ziggy said | November 2nd 2009 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
Amazing was he not? The ABs were always in control. It was just about ‘how many will they win by?’
Kick to kick said | November 2nd 2009 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
Strikes me that the Wallabies’ competitiveness relied soley on Sivivatu’s blunder. For 10 minutes alone the Australians looked like they might be in it. Maybe the sin binning should have been a red card, but regardless you can’t measure a team’s competitive standing by the fact that it almost matched an opponent while the opponent was a man down.
Hermin said | November 2nd 2009 @ 4:27pm | Report comment
It’s pretty obvious that beating the Kiwis is not as EZ as you or your silly pun infer!
Hermin said | November 2nd 2009 @ 4:29pm | Report comment
Oops my mistake Kick this should have been in response to Wannabes post
Vented Relief said | November 2nd 2009 @ 7:49am | Report comment
To me, the whole difference between the teams was the ability to slow down and disrupt ball at the ruck. The wallabies slow ball consistently put pressure on themselves leading to basic errors such as dropped balls. Personally, I think the referees interpretation of the offside rule and definition of a ‘ruck’ ruined the game. When the AB pulled the ball out of a ruck with his hands (and he wasn’t even the tackler) and the ref said ‘no ruck formed’ I almost choked. The Wallabies were 2m from the line and on a massive run. Oh well, I agree that the two teams are fairly close together in terms of ability, just not in terms of ability to get away with cheating. Things look good for the Grand Slam in my eyes though.
Go_the_Wannabe's said | November 2nd 2009 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Everyone forgets that we’re playing against the top 2 teams in the world during the TN. Someone will always be at the bottom. It’s the Wannabe’s turn at the moment, but they’ve bounced back in the past and will in the future.
The EnZedder’s are playing great, clinical football at the moment. We went very close on the night and it would only have taken a few more won lineouts or balls held onto close to the line to knock the EZ’s off.
So don’t despair, we at least aren’t playing the top 2 teams anymore. What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger. We will be back to beat the Ez’s and Saffa’s one day soon. Gauranteed. Hang in their, Dingo.
True Tah said | November 2nd 2009 @ 7:54am | Report comment
Spiro
I dont believe the test match was that hard for the All Blacks to win, they were cruising in the 2nd half and never got out of 2nd gear.
The Wallabies were generally devoid of ideas apart from Genia and Adam Ashley-Cooper. The wallabies backplay was summed up by repeated charges by Giteau, who is not the sort of player who should be doing that. It was clear our forwards are not match fit, as we were getting murdered at the breakdown, mainly due to lack of numbers and the All Blacks practice of being able to turn the tackled player in the tackle, making it easier to compete for the ball. The All Blacks have the advantage of getting a couple of Air NZ Cup games under their belt, and it showed.
hayden said | November 2nd 2009 @ 10:52am | Report comment
Great point True Tah. when was the last time the Wallabies had a real game of rugby? Seems like they’ve been sitting around thumb high since the 3N ended. To then have to front up after several weeks to a test match against the #2 side in the world is a big ask. That said, they are obviously a step or two behind the ABs anyway. But I expect them to be up for the England game.
True Tah said | November 2nd 2009 @ 10:59am | Report comment
hayden
I thought given that England have a lot of their first choice XV out, a Wallaby victory would be very much on the cards this week, but now I have a lot more doubts, as our forwards just didnt compete.
Harry said | November 2nd 2009 @ 8:01am | Report comment
I’ll have to disagree with Spiro’s rosy view and in my opinion the Kiwi’s just toyed with us all night long. They effortlessly moved up a gear when they had to and while you dwell on the Australian chances, don’t forget the Kiwi’s bombed a couple of certain tries … including one fella dropping the ball with the line truly wide open. At one point in the second half we got to within 7 points of NZ but soon rolled over from the kickoff. Our lineout was an utter, utter shambles … terrible for a test team and would have shamed a S14 team … and we were still beaten at the breakdown. In the backs we really miss Mortlock, Barnes and yes Turquiri (the NH sides still feared him, far more than they do Peter Hynes, lets not kid ourselves).
Anyway on to Europe. The test pack needs to spend the entire week doing basic work on set pieces – lineouts, scrums and kickoffs. We cannot expect to win any games until that side is sorted. And FFS please don’t start O’Conner at 15 any more!
I just put the commentary on mute these days, 7 and Fox are dreadful.
The Currie Cup final wasa ripper and shows there is nothing fundamentally wrong with union.
Knives Out said | November 2nd 2009 @ 8:05am | Report comment
‘The scoreline of 32 – 19 to the All Blacks against the Wallabies at Toyko did not give justice to how..’ vastly superior the All Black skill levels and rugby nous are to the Australians. No amount of spin is going to gloss over the current Australia v NZ rivarly, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Frankly, there are few positives to take from this game. I agree with Lee. NZ sucked up the Australian anger in the first half (which was initally very impressive, btw) and counter punched their way to victory. Just because the Australian prize fighter was not knocked out does not mean that the victory was not truly decisive.
‘You never hear McCaw doing this, though. He just thunders around the paddock with a single-minded pursuit of the ball, making his tackles, his catches, his passes and his runs. The All Blacks in general tend towards this style of silent killers.’
And Zinzan Brooke and Sean Fitzpatrick were wonderful ‘referees’, always chattering away to the officials. Just because McCaw is not a vocalist does not mean that it is the right way to play the game. I’m sure that McCaw’s world class talent and experience are more significant than his mysterious stranger approach to referee management.
‘It’s history now that this psychological ploy worked for Woodward and England.’
No. Not at all. It’s history that Woodward and England won a World Cup. Woodward’s England didn’t suddenly start winning matches due to a psychological gimmick. Does anybody think that Leonard, Johnson or Dallaglio gave a fig how muddy their kit was? Woodward’s England tended to collapse in the 2nd half in the initial stages of his tenure because they were not fit enough as a team. That is well documented. England were successful due to myriad reasons and virtues, none of which are shared with the current Australian team.
Mick Gold Coast QLD said | November 3rd 2009 @ 1:31am | Report comment
Knives Out – I agree that the All Blacks hardly changed up to third gear. And that the dirtier Lawrence Bruno Nero Dallaglio (how good is that name!) got the scrappier he got.
However, I’ll see your chatterbox Zinzan and Fitzpatrick and raise you a taciturn Thorne, Oliver and Randell.
As Farr Jones observed on Sean’s retirement, “He was the finest referee I played against.” He was as crafty as they get and under Fitzpatrick’s captaincy he was the only AB talking. The ABs under McCaw rarely open their mouths and he, when the whistle is blown, almost always makes no comment, turns and runs to position for the next bit.
Our lot are masters at all going at once, like a mothers’ club meeting. Giteau the Underachiever never stops barking orders to everyone else, reserving lousy results to himself. He needs to shut his trap and talk more to himself (or have a look at video of Carter, Mehrtens, Steyn, Steyn, Lynagh, Andrews and Fox to see how the big boys do it quietly and so effectively).
I think Tuqiri’s effort in Sydney a year or two back, shoving his NSW team mate for doing something he didn’t like, spoke volumes about their lousy attitudes – all talk no action. I saw a break in play on Saturday with about 4 Wallabies in the background mouthing off like film critics to the referee, in the Greganesque style, obviously oblivious to the fact that a whistle blown cannot be unblown.
sheek said | November 2nd 2009 @ 8:16am | Report comment
I see that the ABs won the test by 6 penalties to 4!
That must have had the fans in raptures!!
Hansie said | November 2nd 2009 @ 8:20am | Report comment
There’s too much pro-Deans spin (implicitly) in this article. The Wallabies were seriously outgunned. To pretend otherwise does the Wallabies no favours in the long term.
sheek said | November 2nd 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
So Hansie,
As I’ve said on other threads, in response to all the Deans bashing, all we have to do is sack Deans, & everything will be okay with the Wallabies & Australian rugby?????
If only life were so simple…..
Hansie said | November 2nd 2009 @ 10:50am | Report comment
I wouldn’t suggest for one moment that sacking Deans will lead to Bledisloe success and world peace. It is true that life is not so simple. But the harsh facts are that the Deans era has not been successful for the Wallabies. Deans has the lowest winning percentage of any modern day Wallaby coach, and the team (to my untrained eye) appears to be regressing more than progressing. There has been no pattern of improvement over the past two years.
sheek said | November 2nd 2009 @ 11:14am | Report comment
Hansie,
What does Deans do?
He only has so many players he can swap around. There’s not much quality depth in Australian rugby at present.
He’s made personnel changes, & he’s tried to improve the basic skills & tactical awareness, but the Wallabies are mutton dressed up as lamb – the quality simply isn’t there.
The guys are trying their best, I’m sure, but they’re simply not good enough.
So sacking Deans isn’t the answer. Firstly, who’s going to replace him? Deans was the best credentialed candidate when selected. People seem to very quickly forget this.
And whoever replaces Deans will be faced with the same problems of player quality shortage. As with Connolly before Deans, & Jones before Connolly in his final years.
The problems lie elsewhere, but too many Roarers are knee-jerk reacting, going for the simple quick-fix.
Scrum Importance said | November 2nd 2009 @ 8:29am | Report comment
Why have a bench of 22 and never use them. The last few tests when being beaten with 15mins or more to go and not looking like scoring why not try sometimg differant to get things happening. Deans is either still coaching to win the RWC in 2 years and playing teams for experience or him (and his coaching team) are lacking ideas when plan A doesn’t work
Dean Pantio said | November 2nd 2009 @ 8:49am | Report comment
As Deans himself has said, why make replacements unless you’re sure they’re going to have an impact?
hayden said | November 2nd 2009 @ 11:08am | Report comment
It seems to me there have been a few times when Deans has replaced the wrong players, and others where he has left the wrong ones on the field when they obviously weren’t having an impact.