Kevin Rudd apologises for Wallaby performance
Roar Pro
By swifty, 17 Nov 2009 The Crowd is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- Drew Mitchell, Eddie Jones, Kevin Rudd, Matt Giteau, Rugby Union, wallabies
Kevin Rudd, the Australian Prime Minister, has issued an apology to the survivors of the 1984 Wallaby team whose reputations have been tarnished by association with the current crop of Australian rugby tourists.
The apology comes after the Wallabies failure to defeat an easily beatable Irish team only one week after finishing within nine points of an impotent and pedestrian English team.
Rudd acknowledged the great hurt and shame that the likes of Andrew Slack and Michael Lynagh must have felt when it was suggested that the likes of Matt Giteau and Drew Mitchell could match their historic performances.
On receiving news of the Wallabies dire draw with a hit-and-miss Ireland, Rudd briefly exposed his inner pain by appearing to shed a tear and then breaking off into rather laboured couplings of Australian sayings.
“I mean fair suck of the old savaloy sausage roll,” Rudd said. “Fairy dinkum, these drongbats don’t deserve to stand in the shade of Ella or Campo. I mean if you want to run with the big dogs you’ve got to piss in the long grass.”
Later that day a much more composed Rudd spoke of the nation’s shame and at a press conference. “We come together today to deal with an ugly chapter in our nation’s history,” he said. “And we come together today to offer our nation’s apology.”
Referring to the thousands of Wallaby supporters who travelled to Dublin for the game, the Australian Prime Minister said, “We look back with shame that so many of you were left cold, hungry and alone and with nowhere to hide and with nobody, absolutely nobody, to whom to turn.”
Rudd also apologised for the length of Eddie Jones’ reign as Wallaby coach, the whole ARC debacle, the Greg Smith years and for ever allowing Al Baxter within six miles of a Wallaby jersey.
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? (201)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (173)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (70)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (65)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (58)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- France turns to Parra and Trinh-Duc
- Rebels look to lift for formidable Blues in rugby trial
- Mr Fix-It Lucas wants to nail down No.10
- Force roost loses ‘Mother Hen’ Sharpe
- Waratahs romp to 83-5 trial win over Samoa A
- Quade Cooper’s return to the Reds goes up a gear
- Chiefs continue to wait for SBW (7)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (29)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (19)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (202)
- 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:
- Drew Mitchell, Eddie Jones, Kevin Rudd, Matt Giteau, Rugby Union, wallabies
johnno42 said | November 17th 2009 @ 4:01am | Report comment
was there an apology given for selecting a kiwi coach who just can’t seem to get the juices flowing in a team of over-paid prima donnas too??
sheek said | November 17th 2009 @ 5:55am | Report comment
Clever & amusing.
All jokes aside, it would have been embarassing having the 2009 Wallabies sit alongside the 1984 Wallabies as Grand Slam champions. The difference between the two teams in terms of talent realised is massive.
One day the members of this Wallabies team may be as good as their 1984 counterparts, but at present they are far from it.
Tim Reardon said | November 17th 2009 @ 9:08am | Report comment
The squad of players for the 1984 Grand Slam tour were considered relatively jumior at the start of the tour.
It was the Grand Slam and what they did subsequently that made them legends.
sheek said | November 17th 2009 @ 3:29pm | Report comment
Well Tim – yes & no.
Farr-Jones made his debut in the first match against England, the only one to do so from the start. Lynagh was playing his second test only. Burke made his debut when he replaced the injured Moon.
Cutler & McIntyre had made their debuts in 82, Tuynman, Lawton & Codey in 83, but 84 was their first full year.
Rodriguez had his first full year as a Wallaby in 84, but otherwise was a worldly-wise ex-Puma.
The core of the team was provided by Slack, Mark Ella, Gould, Campese, Moon in the backs, & Poidevin & Williams in the pack. By today’s standards, it might appear an inexperienced team, but in those days, once you got to 10 tests (usually two full years) you were considered an experienced member of the team.
Shadow players who appeared against the ABs in 84, but were replaced in GS matches, but were otherwise well experienced, included Hawker, Phil Cox & Roche.
Ironically, even though many of the current squad have more tests under their belt, collectively they are considered less experienced & less settled that the 84 team.
Rickety Knees said | November 17th 2009 @ 11:37am | Report comment
Ditto Sheek
AndyS said | November 17th 2009 @ 6:40pm | Report comment
“One day the members of this Wallabies team may be as good as their 1984 counterparts, but at present they are far from it.”
Yes and no – one day they may be as good, but they will now never be credited as such. Since ’84 we have had great players, some winning two world cups and considered legends, but they are individuals. It remains the Grand Slam team that is forever held up as the point of comparison, never mind that they lost four and drew one tour matches. This tour was this team’s chance to lay down the same marker, and they couldn’t. They could win in 2011, but they’ll never be held in the same regard.
Greg Russell said | November 18th 2009 @ 2:52pm | Report comment
Good comment Bruce. One might object “Ah, but it’s only with hindsight that we say that so many of the 1984 players were great.” However this is not true – it was clear at the time that many of the 1984 players were right out of the box. However the same cannot be said at this stage about many of the 2009 players at all. Therefore your comment is completely correct.
Personally I think a draw in this match is a result beyond expectations. I never expected Australia to win this match (for obvious reasons – Ireland are reigning 6N champs and grand slam winners, were at home, etc.), just as I have never expected Australia to win in Cardiff in a fortnight.
A draw is not a loss and therefore is still a positive result when seen in context. The only real sense in which this loss is a disappointment is that arguably Australia should have won this match, having played the better rugby and been in front all the way. When a talented but young and inexperienced side comes up against a mature side, one always has to reckon with the old heads being able to emerge with a result even if not the better side – that’s one of the universals of sport.
Nick (KIA) said | November 17th 2009 @ 10:34am | Report comment
This is pure comedy gold, well done.
Bay35Pablo said | November 17th 2009 @ 10:53am | Report comment
Honk, Honk!!! (chortle)
zhenry said | November 17th 2009 @ 10:55am | Report comment
Extraordinary! A young team. Ireland game written up by your coat tails Growden as being well played. How many other Wallaby sides did not win a grand slam? I sense from comments I read that all Australia’s defected anger. scapegoating and historical habit of dumping on NZ is about to descend on Deans. The slightest excuse. Mate, I’d take the two and half million you’ve already got and get the hell out of there.
mattamkII said | November 17th 2009 @ 11:14am | Report comment
Funny but my god you blokes need to settle down – so bloody negative.
“it not the same as it was in the good ol’ days”
As brilliant as the 84 team was, to draw expectations from that is just plain silly….yes they were a young side too but it was 1984 for god sake! rugby wasnt pro and a lot of the good players either retired young or converted to League. Thats not to say the 84 team were the best of that era, my point is at that time the development gap between young blokes and vets was much more slim.
This Wallabies team needs time, thats all.
mattamkII said | November 17th 2009 @ 11:39am | Report comment
sorry should read “thats not to say the 84 team werent the best of that era”
BigAl said | November 17th 2009 @ 11:47am | Report comment
I would hate to have an Old Man like Swifty !
Howi said | November 17th 2009 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
I reckon the tragedy is that we have to put up with this ‘legendary myth’ more years to come. Honestly, Mark Ella can barely write a column without making reference to 1984 as if nothing has happened in Australian Rugby since. People seem to forget too easily about the feats of the 2000 Wallabies. In the year 2000, the Wallabies held the Bledisloe Cup (NZ), Cook Cup(Eng), Hopetoun Cup(Scot), Lansdowne Cup(Ire), Mandela Plate(SA), Puma Trophy(Arg), Trinations Trophy(NZ, SA), Trophee des Bicentenaires(Fr) and the Webb Ellis Cup(World). The Lansdowne Cup was won in 1999, not played in 2000 and no cup existed for Wales in that year but Wales were also defeated in 1999. The following year, 2001, the Wallabies also won the Tom Richards Cup (Br. Lions).
In terms of achievement, the 2000 Wallabies is the standard against which all others should be judged, including the 1984 team.
Blind freddy said | November 17th 2009 @ 1:57pm | Report comment
Spot on Howi. But well said Swifty
sheek said | November 17th 2009 @ 6:16pm | Report comment
Howi,
I was going to give you a reasoned & thoughtful response, but stuff it……….
I am biased towards the players of 1980-86 & I make no apology for this. I loved the way they played the game (mostly).
They thrilled me, & provided me with a window to how good the game of rugby union could be when played by men of courage, enterprise & daring.
They gave me many of my best memories of rugby, & I am in debt to them.
You didn’t have the opportunity to see these guys play first-hand (I’m presuming), & I’m very sorry for you younger generations that you missed out on the Ellas, Campeses, O’Connors, Goulds, Moons, etc, in their pomp.
Many years from now Howi, when you’re an old man, it will be the good memories that sustain you, & make your life worthwhile. Are we wrong to expect that from our sportsmen? Giving us good memories today for our old age???
Shahsan said | November 17th 2009 @ 6:25pm | Report comment
The only reason the current squad is compared with the 1984 one is because THAT TEAM WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS DONE THE GRAND SLAM — a feat the current team are trying/tried to emulate.
I too believe the circa 2000 team was better — though not necessarily more attractive — and would have cakewalked a grand slam if such a tour had been organised. Sadly they never had the chance to do it.
That’s all. No one said that the 1984 team was the best of all time.
Having said all that, Ido think that if the current team had managed to do teh Grand Slam it would rank as a superior achievment to the 1984 one — because the British teams now are in better shape than they were in 1984, and because the current Wallabies are more green and have had a bit of a pasting psychologically of late.
Spiro Zavos said | November 17th 2009 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
Pure gold, Swifty. I particularly liked that part in St Kevin’s apology when he he stated: ‘I am unapologetic about my opposition to the many losses in the Eddie Jones era which have brought programmatic schedulisationary systemisation into an unfortunate light. This is just another indication of the failure of the Howard Government to get on with the job of creating a winning Australia …’