By Andrew Logan
November 22nd 2009 @ 7:01am
Wallabies a laughing stock
Did I say 19 points? Oh ho ho! What a chuckle. The only people laughing louder than me (and probably AT me too), are the Scottish fans who quite rightly will be dining out on this victory for quite some time to come.
There’s also a few deranged giggles coming from the Wallaby fan section, and the men in white coats must be on the cusp of an influx of new patients from that bunch. And that tittering you can hear coming from the south? The All Blacks and Springboks giggling at the hapless men in gold.
Predictions? What a thankless business. And as if anyone could predict anything this Wallaby side is going to do anyway. Just about every time you think they must have run out of ways to twist the knife into the chests of their loyal supporters, they conjure up a flabbergasting loss to the 9th ranked side in world rugby, who never looked like scoring against them.
The Wallabies are fast becoming a scoff-fest of their own making, and the stream of scoffable items just never stops coming. Matt Giteau’s nomination for IRB Player Of The Year? Pfffft. The Bumble Brothers Horwill and Chisolm in the second row? Yuk yuk. The Wallabies ability to convert pressure into points? Har de har har.
The Wallaby team went into this Test match hoping to right the awful injustices of their quality effort against Ireland, and came away emphasising their complete inability to deal with even the mildest of threats. The comedy in the whole thing was that this Australian side was up against a Scottish side with basically no attack whatsoever, who never looked like scoring a try. Despite this clear advantage, the Wallabies still couldn’t put them away.
The pockets of quality in the Wallaby team – Wycliffe Palu, Will Genia, Rocky Elsom – were unable to disguise the yawning shortcomings in certain positions – Matt Giteau, Ryan Cross, James Horwill, Mark Chisolm, Sekope Kepu.
Cross is miles from being a Test quality centre. Contrast his meek surrender in the tackle with an Ioane or a Mortlock in damage mode, and you get some inkling of the popgun attack that Robbie Deans is forced to play with when the injury toll mounts. Coupled with Cross’ scatty decision making, (remember his turnover offload after gathering a loose pass from Genia?) you can imagine that the Scots must have licked their lips when he appeared on the team sheet.
As for the Blunder Brothers, Horwill and Chisolm, if you listen carefully you can hear the Benny Hill music somewhere in the background when these two get their hands on the pill. During one moment of slapstick, the ball was clear on the Wallaby side of the ruck when the Blunder Brothers entered and sealed it off from their own players. My head was shaking involuntarily at the hopelessness of it all.
During the week Matt Giteau was nominated for the IRB Player of the Year trophy and to his credit he modestly averred that he was unlikely to win. Against the Scots, it was almost as if he was playing to prove it. His option taking at pivot was again poor – kicking when he should have run, and running when he should have kicked. His first half field goal attempt when the Wallabies were hard on attack smacked of a man who had run out of options and didn’t know what else to do.
There was no setup, no composure about it, just an ill-conceived snap at the posts. As the ball evaporated out to the left, so did the Wallabies chances of converting their efforts into something meaningful.
Sure Giteau put Moore into a gap and he almost scored, but the gap was created just as much by Moore’s straight running as Giteau’s sleight-of-hand. His grubber kicks were way overweight, and placed in behind the traffic of a breakdown so few Australian chasers were able to get through in time to pressure the fullback.
As for his goalkicking, well, what to say? Giteau has never been a radar boot of the likes of Carter or Wilkinson, and so you always expect him to miss a few. But his inability to self correct when he started slicing under the ball and drifting it left was a real worry. Every miss was the same error, particularly with the final conversion attempt where he took so long to kick that the Scottish players were only inches away from a chargedown.
As I have said, there were pockets of sunlight amid the gloom. Wycliffe Palu was tireless (who thought a year ago they would see that name and that adjective in the same sentence?). His willingness to take the ball forward, and his effectiveness in doing it was unmatched by any other player, and he was the standout for the beaten Wallabies.
Elsom once again turned in a tradesmanlike performance, as did his hookers Moore and Polota-nau. George Smith was also effective, but his impact in the tackle compared to Pocock was slightly less and he is now a clear number two in the Wallaby pecking order.
Genia was again excellent in most facets, but even his quicksilver attitude couldn’t dispel the gloom. His replacement Burgess’ pass regularly floated high and increased Giteau’s uncertainty. Burgess also managed a cold drop in a promising position, relieving pressure on the Scots.
He wasn’t alone. Sekope Kepu also managed to get in the way when the Wallabies were hard on attack, and he backed that up by conceding a penalty in the subsequent scrum, thus becoming a virtual Scot for 3 minutes, as no player in a blue jersey could have averted the pressure quite so effectively.
Having said all this, the Scots used their only real weapon, hard and willing defence, to good effect. Whenever a Wallaby carried the ball forward, they were in real danger of being belted or having the ball turned over, or both. The Scots had plenty off opportunities to tackle, and tackle they did. At half time they had made twice as many tackles as their counterparts, and instead of wearing them down, it seemed to invigorate them, as they realised that the Wallabies (Palu aside) didn’t want to do the hard yards with the ball in hand or at the breakdown.
Eventually the pressure told and the Scots realised the truth of the worst kept secret in international rugby – that the Wallabies would implode if they kept the pressure on.
For the last two minutes, and with the match all but gone, the Wallabies finally conjured up the phases that they had been missing for the previous 79 minutes, and worked a try to Cross. It was close enough to give Giteau a chance at winning the match, but predictably he missed the kick.
If you look at the stats, the Wallabies probably should have won. But their inability to convert showed them to be pretenders in the chase for the Grand Slam. In that sense the Scots actually did us all a favour by throwing out any possibility that this team might be compared to the greats of 1984. They’re not in the same ballpark. Actually that’s inaccurate. In truth, they’re not even in the same postcode.
As for the rest of the tour, brace yourselves Wallaby fans – this could get worse.
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...
(306)
sportym said | November 22nd 2009 @ 7:13am | Report comment
Good write up Andrew. I am currently living in the UK, and really not looking forward to going to work on monday, my Kiwi , english and saffa mates are going to give me hell.
Mithcell, Cross and Burgess should never be given a wallaby jumper again.
And people were talking up the grand slam, this is our worst tour ever, 2009 is one year the wallabies would love to remove from the history books
Nick P-G said | November 22nd 2009 @ 11:01am | Report comment
I was pretty happy with Mitchel actually.
He go involved a bit and when he got put into touch it was more Cross’ poor decision making than his fault.
fred said | November 22nd 2009 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
YEP
Stu said | November 22nd 2009 @ 7:19am | Report comment
I thought 19 points was a little brave – but Scotland are a very pedestrian unit – when did they last beat us – it must be 25 or more years ago!
Classic Andrew re- the blunder brothers – I’m becoming very certain that instead of the national anthem,that the benny hill’s theme is this team’s anthem – So glad i didn’t watch or records this abomination
Andrew Logan said | November 22nd 2009 @ 7:25am | Report comment
Stu….apparently our average margin over Scotland prior to this match was about 20-21 points so 19 wasn’t that ridiculous in that sense. However, this team manages some staggering new ways to lose football games, and I should have taken that inot account!
Andrew Logan said | November 22nd 2009 @ 7:25am | Report comment
PS they last beat us in 1982!
sheek said | November 22nd 2009 @ 11:30am | Report comment
That Scottish win (7-12) in 1982 was very much against the run of play. The Wallabies bombed about 3-4 tries that day.
It was also the infamous day the Ballymore crowd booed their own countrymen. Every time Glen or Mark Ella received the ball, they were booed by the crowd furious at the omission of Roger Gould & Paul McLean.
TommyM said | November 22nd 2009 @ 7:30am | Report comment
Lack of support play was the worst aspect of this performance IMO. Think you’re a bit harsh on Cross. He made many good runs, constantly brought in 2 or 3 defenders, and unlike the rest of the Wallabies backline was always looking to offload to put someone through the impenetrable Scottish backline. And he scored the try. Now…
I’ve held off cristicing Deans at all since he assumed the role of Wallabies coach, but the pendulum has swung so far now from back to forward strength within the team that as the man who apparently directly coaches tha backs, he has to shoulder the blame. Undoubtedly, the backline defense has suffered since he broke up the rigid structure that for so long was the envy of world rugby. But at least he could surely bring some of that sparkling Canterbury attack we thought? Apparently not, as under his tenure, the conversion ratio of possesion to points has dropped to woeful levels. With so much possession and so much territory, the backlines of past Wallabies teams would have reamed the Scottish, especially off first phase ball which was such as strength. No longer alas. I think some of the blame has to go to his refusal too to move Giteau from 10. How many times must he prove that he cannot effectively control a backline before being moved on? Brilliant player- yes. Brilliant flyhalf- NO!!!!
James O’Connor brought a bit of saprkle to the attack when he came on (finally in his proper position of 12). I look forward to hopefully seeing a pairing of him and Toomua in the game against Cardiff (IMO Australia’s best long-term propsects at 12 and 10 respectively).
I have to confess that I was actually willing Giteau to miss that conversion to maximise the effect of the Wallabies appaling inability to score tries in the hope that it will bring significant change moving on. Congratulations too to Scotland. Despite Australia’s attacking inadequacies, that must surely rate as one of the best defenesive performances in International rugby history.
Cattledog said | November 22nd 2009 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
It was very pedestrian, but as you have pointed out, TM, that would rate as one of the greatest defensive efforts in modern times. I think fate plays a part here. When the All Blacks went down to the French in 99, who would have thought. Just sometimes, everything you seem to touch turns to gold. In this case, a truely magnificent defensive effort combined with some luck each time they ventured into the Wallaby half, which was pretty rare, it came up trumps.
Whilst this loss has put us back considerably, I would hope people realise that a defensive effort of that magnitude deserves significant praise and reward, which I think the Scots deserve.
Rin said | November 23rd 2009 @ 10:55am | Report comment
WAY TO HARSH ON CROSS
I agree i think was very harsh on Cross, who i thought with AAC had quite good games and was very solid in defence, they were out best line options. Everytime he got the ball he made yards and took defenders with him.
Rickety Knees said | November 22nd 2009 @ 7:30am | Report comment
Mate – I am still stunned. The poor play, tactics and strategies. I cannot understand why we did not compete for the ball in the Scotish lineouts.
Horwill and Chisholm should be renamed “Null” and “Void”. They are the most ineffective pair of 2nd rowers to represent the Walabie that I have seen.
Ths side is still young and not up to standard which is a reflection of the lack of depth in Australian Rugby. There are many reasons for this but most of all is the lack a national Australian championship. Scrapping the ARC was mistake.
Tom said | November 22nd 2009 @ 7:31am | Report comment
All coaches are restricted by the cattle they have to work with but for how much longer will Robbie Deans be treated as an endangered species? There is still 2 years to the next World Cup. Time enough for a complete overhaul of coaching and playing roster. Its a young side that obviously takes time to develop but that doesnt explain the lack of work ethic – where is the desperation, the desire, the passion… its an embarrasing loss (yet another), but i could live with it if they just werent good enough. To lose because their is little heart, no imagination and seemingly scarce leadership on and off field – it cannot be tolerated. Give me a squad of battlers willing to have a go over this overpaid, precious mob any day.
Aljay said | November 22nd 2009 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
I’ve held off criticizing Deans, but this is too much. Only question is – who else is there? McKenzie?
Fraser said | November 22nd 2009 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
Ian foster maybe? Dave Rennie,Colin Cooper..Do you see the pattern?
cosmos forever said | November 22nd 2009 @ 4:48pm | Report comment
John O’Neill hired Deans didn’t he – he’s not going anywhere – O’Neill’s never wrong
Oh, and on that front. How’s that concentration on the national 15 and not on grass roots development going ARU!
I feel sorry for Deans.
Parisien said | November 22nd 2009 @ 9:54pm | Report comment
Anyone but McKenzie! He was sacked for incompetence here at Stade Francais and considered an appalling coach, lazy and un-motivational to boot. He was disliked by the administrators, players and public.
Michael Cheika who coached Leinster to win the Heineken Cup looks like a future candidate to me, with nothing but praise from his players.
kingplaymaker said | November 22nd 2009 @ 7:40am | Report comment
Andrew I think the amazing omission in your analysis is any criticism of the wings.
This rests on the standard assumption that all a wing should do is defend well and run a good 100 metres time if given an unopposed route to the line.
If anything Drew Mitchell and Peter Hynes were the very worst players of all. Given a mountain of possession and space they failed to make any holes in the Scottish defence or even a few yards.
The mis-defining of a wing’s role as nothing more than a solid pillar at the end of backline is why atrocious non-performances like today are allowed to pass uncommented. A wing is good enough so long as he does nothing wrong.
This reflects back on the pack on Giteau and the pack. Sure they didn’t play that well, but all the good work they did died in the hapless hands of Hynes, Mitchell and Cross, the useless outside backs. What would Conrad Smith, Ma’a Nonu, Luke Mcalister, Sitiveni Sitivatu, Cory Jane or Zac Guildford have done with such golden opportunities?
Until the Wallabies learn that a wing, with the best occasions on the field, has to do more than finish off the odd cake-walk to the line and instead should be tear the opposition defence at again and again then terrible players like the two we saw today will continue to be selected.
Andrew Logan said | November 22nd 2009 @ 7:57am | Report comment
We have a deadline to get pieces up in the morning, so the lack of analysis of the wings may have been a simple time constraint rather than a tacit approval of their play. However, I’m not sure I agree that they were “the worst players of all’. I think they were mostly sound and did their best with limited opportunities, without being dangerous.
They were definitely quiet, but I don’t agree that a wing is in the same position as often to influence a game as, say, a halfback or a backrower, although one D. Campese may have something to say about that.
kingplaymaker said | November 22nd 2009 @ 8:09am | Report comment
Andrew I watched them carefully although I don’t have statistics, but it seems the me they had many opportunities but were unable to damage the enemy lines at all.
I’m afraid I disagree about the impact a wing can have. They receive little ball, but it is normally with gigantic areas of space in front and only a man or two to beat. Players closer to the action have to get through much heavier traffic and have far less room to operate in. A talented wing can enter the line all over the field and break it with almost more penetration than anyone else: witness Sivivatu and Cory Jane in the Tri-nations this year and Habana and Pietersen against the Lions.
However, expectations of wings are never very high. ‘Sound’, the word you use, is usually what’s expected of them. So they go through matches doing little wrong in defence, nipping in to finish off easy tries or running in interceptions and everyone thinks they have had good games. But with the great positions they are in they should be doing what a Sivivatu or Habana or Jane or Petersen do, and ripping refences asunder, making the crucial, match-turning breaks.
Hynes and Mitchell cannot do this because they do not have the ability, even against Scotland!! Lote Tuqiri and Digby Ioane are players who on a good day can do what a wing should do and make real breaks in those acres of space or elsewhere.
As long as the Wallabies carry two slumbering passengers out wide they’ll continue to get worse (if Uruguay give them a match and a chance to).
Pete said | November 22nd 2009 @ 8:02am | Report comment
KP, completely agree. When the back three get hold of the ball you should stand up on your seat with expectation. I’m afraid, apart from AAC I expect nothing. Think of Campo, Latham, Roth, Tune, Tuquiri (or Sailor for goodness sake). The opposition should c*rap themselves wondering what the back three will do. This lot don’t have that aura, they just kick and hope.
anopinion said | November 22nd 2009 @ 4:01pm | Report comment
The only worry for wings playing Tuquiri was how hard he would run into them. Not that he would run around them. Campo, Tune, Roth yes, they caused the opposition worries.
Knives Out said | November 22nd 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
I think you’ll find that Hynes made the most metres per carry (from the fewest carries) and that he was the only starting back not to be turned over and concede possession. Hynes also made the most tackles of the backs. I think you should also keep in mind that the only back three 3N players to have scored a try this series are AAC, Mitchell and Habana. I hope you use this information wisely, kingplaymaker.
stillmissit said | November 22nd 2009 @ 10:10am | Report comment
Knives Out – It is embarrassing to me to have a Pommie state what most Aussies should know if they knew anything about rugby. That is that Hynes is a great winger who has rarely if ever in my book had a poor game. Cant say that of any other winger over the last few years. His catching, running, defending and guts has him high in terms of natural attitude in a team that loves to avoid the tough stuff, Hynes always puts his hand up along with AAC.
jools-usa said | November 22nd 2009 @ 7:51am | Report comment
Thank God Setanta didn’t see fit to show the game in US.
Bring back Eddie Jones – the honeymoon is over!
Jools-USA
Colin N said | November 22nd 2009 @ 8:29am | Report comment
What honeymoon?
stillmissit said | November 22nd 2009 @ 8:43am | Report comment
Jools-usa your not a relo are you? We don’t jump into fires from frying pans.
Firestarter Bob said | November 22nd 2009 @ 8:06am | Report comment
How long did Giteau take to kick the ball. The Scots nearly got to the ball first!
The Wallabies were camped under the Scot’s posts a good three minutes before fulltime. How much time did they waste before finally letting the ball fly? It wasn’t until injury time.
I know that they were trying to drag in more defenders, but that close to line? Please. If they had backed themselves more they would have got over near the posts or sooner, leaving a desperate last minute or two if Giteau missed the conversion.
Rockin Rod said | November 22nd 2009 @ 8:06am | Report comment
Good write up Andrew, but what do we do for the wales test????? Gits confidence is the lowest i have ever seen. Is it time now for Robbie to put him to 12 and play Quade at 10.
Dunning must come in for Kepu
Hopefully Digby will be back to replace Cross. If not AAC to 13 and JO to 15, but AAC did play well and needs to settle in 1 position.
Pocock will definatley come back in, if Palu is injured do we go with Smith or Brown at 8 ?I think we should go with Brown as he atleast brings some grunt to that pack that no one in world rugby is scared of.
That lock position is a real concern. What happened to Ben Hand that ran the very good Brumbies lineout this year?
Would be interested in your thoughts
Benny said | November 22nd 2009 @ 8:07am | Report comment
Not sure what burgess did wrong – score our only try with him on and giteau bombed another in the 72nd minute . Genia is a bit of a ball hog IMO.
Giteau missed shots at goal that NO other kicker in world rugby misses.
Colin N said | November 22nd 2009 @ 8:32am | Report comment
“Giteau missed shots at goal that NO other kicker in world rugby misses.”
But I think he does have over 80% success rate, which is one of the best in world rugby, if not the best.
I don’t think he’s a great ten, but he simply had an off day with the boot.
stillmissit said | November 22nd 2009 @ 8:43am | Report comment
Colin he has had an off tour so far. Ireland and now Scotland lost due to poor kicking. Enough already!
pothale said | November 22nd 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
You mean place kicking or play-kicking?
I think it’s too easy to blame kicking or rather Giteau’s kicks.
Today’s result is not surprising in some ways because the Ireland result last week told the team the wrong things. Australia’s supposed domination of the scrums and breakdown against Ireland led people to think Ireland were lucky to get a draw. However, people forget that the 7 point difference between the teams at a critical stage where the gap could have been closed or the margin increased, was the telling point in the match. The Wallabies of old would have increased the margin, not allowed themselves to be put in a position of defending heroically before conceeding (a bit like Ireland of old ironically).
Ireland were ring-rusty last week. It was probably mis-leading to gauge the game against them as a sign of substantial progress, when in all likelihood if the game had gone on for a further few minutes, Ireland would probably have scored again and won the match. Australia hadn’t done enough, and what they had done, they over-estimated as a measure of their progress and strength as a team.
Where is the strong and inventive running one would expect to see from a SH team, and particularly from Australia? Yes, sure, kick n chase has infected the game, but Australia proved in their winning game against the Boks that they hadn’t forgotten how to put the ball about. Giteau made the comment last week that Australia were kicking a lot more ‘up here’ because that was what was required. No, it’s not. If you wanted dour, tough, drudging warfare with endless tooth n nail defence, you couldn’t have picked a better place than Edinburgh. In the Magners and H Cup, travelling to play Edinburgh on their home patch inevitably draws a groan cos people know there’ll be nothing easy. Teams travelling north looking to complete the next piece of their 6 Nations Grand Slam – England, France, Wales and Ireland have all come away with a bloodied nose for their trouble – assumptions about it being an easy leg of the series dumped in the bin. Running, inventive backline play, regular use of the width of the pitch is what starts to wear teams down, and the cracks appear as tries are run in.
I have no sense across the three games to date of a coherent Australian backline unit that TOGETHER are putting the fear of God into opposition defences.
Ireland do. Wales do. France do. New Zealand do. What happened to Australia?
stillmissit said | November 22nd 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
Pothale – first is Giteau’s goal kicking and second he is poor field kicking. The rest of the team ain’t making it easy but compared to most Wallaby teams we appear to have no back up to an out of form kicker in Giteau.
I agree that our backline play is poor to dreadful and that is mostly due to Giteau not being a #3 country 10 and nothing has improved or changed since he took over. Bottom line in my book is that he just ain’t smart enough or skilful enough to handle the position.
Your analysis about the Ireland game is right on the money a draw to a very rusty team was not good and under normal circumstances would have hardened up a team. I fell for the media crap about Ireland being the hardest game etc etc that is a team we should have stuck 15-20 points up. The Scots played a far superior game and we wern’t ready and primed for it.
With our marshmellow Wallabies they get a sniff of an ‘easy’ game and up go the feet and on goes the remote control.
There is nothing wrong with the Wallabies skills and abilities, not as good as previous teams but not bad either. The BIG thing is attitude and this is where Deans has lost me, these guys need a hard coach who tells them what is wrong and then acts on repeated failure. I also can’t see an overall structure in our play and a sneaking suspicion that Ohtani’s Jacket may have something on Deans after all.
Matt0931 said | November 22nd 2009 @ 10:20am | Report comment
fascinated
Matt0931 said | November 22nd 2009 @ 10:34am | Report comment
You’re right pothale. ‘Where is the strong and inventive running one would expect from a SH team’.
It was only 5 years ago Aus had (aguably) one of the worlds best backline outfits in world rugby. Latham, Larkham, Gregan, Mortlock, Tuquiri etc etc. AND probably the world’s worst pack in world rugby.
The backs five years ago were the only thing that was keeping the wallabies in most matches with some great defensive play and inventive try scoring attacks. Many times I’ve seen Latham or Larkham break defensive lines to score some amazing tries!!
Suddenly the forwards seem to have learnt how to scrummage, forgotten how to perform even the simplest of lineouts and the backs are terribly hopeless at everything.
Where were the dummy runners? Where were the set plays Aus were once so famous for? Why weren’t the Aussies competing for the opposition lineout?
Importantly, where is our back up kicker? It was painfully obvious after the first half that Gits was suffering. There should be someone who the ball can be thrown to. Normally that would be Mortlock but when he is injured there must be someone else who can take this place as second kicker.
TommyM said | November 22nd 2009 @ 3:28pm | Report comment
Quade Cooper kicked superbly in the Gloucester match. He should have take at least the alst kick. But who was to make th call? Giteau himself should have. But is Elsom had and Cooper had missed, everyoine would have blamed him :-S
fred said | November 22nd 2009 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
probably got the all blacks 2003 backline coach
stillmissit said | November 22nd 2009 @ 8:39am | Report comment
Benny I love Burgess but this is worse than the Iranian minister for information during the war. Burgess was dreadful today.
tarpo said | November 22nd 2009 @ 8:50am | Report comment
Gits has had an off year, I knew as soon as i saw Burgo on the field we were’nt going to win
Justin said | November 22nd 2009 @ 11:41am | Report comment
And who put him on the field? Yep Drongo. Burgess is woeful, poor passing, knock-ons, poor options, the guy is a dud and yet Deans put him on and when was the last time he had played a match?
I will be howled down for this but I thought we played reasonably well. We crossed twice, had one try disallowed for a forward pass (50-50 call really). The main problem, which isnt new is that we continue not to score when in the hot zone. I thought both Gits and Cooper could have pinned the ears close to the line (when Gits threw to Cross and Coop to Mitchell) as they had the outside and momentum with a slippery field they would have score IMO.
We dominated possession and territory. My main two beefs with the strategy were we continue not to contest in the LO and the continuing grubbers within 25 meteres of the line. Its a tactic that never works, gives possession back. AUS of old would just keep the ball and score a try and get a penalty.
Every kick Gits had he should have kicked, they were all 90% jobs for most kickers.
In the end errors cost us the match. All types, under pressure, no pressure, missed kicks. Kepu was hopeless. Not sure that the locks were nearly as bad as some are making out.
Cattledog said | November 22nd 2009 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
Justin, it was forward, not even close to 50/50. That’s clutching at straws. Better to have given to Hines closer I think it was. Never mind, spilt milk.
Benny said | November 23rd 2009 @ 7:59am | Report comment
Burgess’ quick tap leads to forward pass no-try, burgess cutout to cooper leads to bombed try (thanks giteau) in 72min and then our only try was off good quick ball – blame someone else boys – possibly the guy who missed 3 goalkicks that were regulation and would have won the game…
fred said | November 22nd 2009 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
great tactical acumen but we are building nicely for the rwc arent we?
anopinion said | November 22nd 2009 @ 4:11pm | Report comment
No we are not building for the WC, we are playing test matches. The World Cup is a long time off. Australia should have its best team on the field each week.
Parisien said | November 22nd 2009 @ 10:22pm | Report comment
Stillmissit, I think you meant the Iraqi Minister for Information. The Iranian War is yet to begin.
harryonthecoast said | November 23rd 2009 @ 2:52pm | Report comment
Bit like the Grand Slam Tour. Tell me; How can a Grand Slam be a Grand Slam before they have played a game?
davo said | November 22nd 2009 @ 8:16am | Report comment
Ben Tune continues to give good analysis on Ch10 and his comment that any side with that much territory and that much possesion cant be all bad. Spot on. Our set pieces were good, our defence and pilfering of rare Scottish ball was by and large excellent and he team managed to put together phases………but the option taking then became pathetic and we have just lost the ability to score tries.
Agree with a few of the points above – Elsom, Palu and both hookers played well. Cooper looked good when running and but bad when kicking or passing. O’conner showed the value of a step and quick feet as opposed to the non-straight pedestrian speed forays of Cross, and AAC, Mitchell and Hynes did absolutely nothing with all the ball they received.
Burgess was terrible when he came on, but Genia wasn’t so fantastic this match either. Credit to Scotland though. Defence as good as you will see, some excellent individual performances in the forwards and I thought that replacement halfback Lawson has a cracker. Scotland weren’t necessarily the better team but if for no other reason than commitment to the cause, they deserved it.
PS: I loved having the players run out in the dark with just a couple of spotlights….then the lone piper on the rooftop. Great theatre
slagger knocker said | November 22nd 2009 @ 8:24am | Report comment
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
stillmissit said | November 22nd 2009 @ 8:34am | Report comment
Andrew – There were about 3 main things wrong with the Wallabies last night. The backline play is average and the lineout is poor. The breakdown work is stop/start and against the Scots it was stop again with zero counter rucking and George Smith left on his own too often. I will talk about the coaching after.
The inability to take their opportunities is now a standard part of this teams make up. Stephen Moore not diving for the line in wet conditions is the stuff that nearly every rugby player in the world knows. Quade Cooper throwing two forward passes in 5 mins is very poor, although the second one was only about half a metre forward, on replay forward it was.
The lack of competition and structure in the lineout is disastrous for go forward and consistency.
YOU DON”T WIN TEST MATCHES WITHOUT A KICKER. With Giteau this far out of form it was Rocky’s job to hand the final kick to someone else. Having said that who would know who else can kick in the team? There never is any alternative to Giteau.
The positive out of this pile is that Giteau will be moved out of 10. Even a hard headed Cantabrian will have to concede that he can’t play this position. The negative is that Deans could lose his position but he has been asking for it in the last few matches.
The coaching is average to poor. We need Muggleton back for defence and Vickerman on contract to tighten up the lineout. This area of play has deteriorated to such a level that it must be taken away from Jim Williams.
Deans time may be up he has shown too much faith in players who have just let themselves and the country down too often and got away with it. He is too nice a guy to deal with the complex psyche of this generation of young players who obviously react to different things than a bunch of farmers and meat workers from Canterbury.
Bottom line in my book is thank goodness there is now cast iron reasons to move Giteau. If Deans doesn’t he will lose my fragile support. O’Neil may not be so forgiving.
BTW I thought the Scots deserved to win. I mentioned to my partner after 10 mins in the second half that we were going to lose this game., she refused to watch the final 5 mins and has totally given up on Giteau.
Ben said | November 22nd 2009 @ 10:55am | Report comment
George Smith has been left on his own since Kefu, Finegan and Eales retired. Finally the forwards are starting to turn the corner and yet again it is GS who is the man left without any assistance.
Is it not time for Horwill, Chisolm, Burgess, Mitchell, Cross and even maybe Gits to be told that unless you show consistent good performances, then maybe look for another job in 2011?
Bill Baxter said | November 22nd 2009 @ 2:58pm | Report comment
Why wait until 2011, 2010 comes first!!!
PJ2 said | November 22nd 2009 @ 8:36am | Report comment
How bad was that? Scotland has to be the worst team with Italy in the NH. There goes the sponsors. What did oniell say? ‘You will love us again when we are winning’. That seems a long long way off. It is fair enough to lose to NZ and SA, but Scotland!?!?!?!?
Rab said | November 22nd 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
As a scot in Australia i am loving this as per usual any time an Aussie team loses excuse after excuse you lost end of story
Justin said | November 22nd 2009 @ 11:44am | Report comment
No excuses mate just reasons. I havent heard anyone make excuses. Well defended Scotland, it was a mighty effort.
Rab said | November 22nd 2009 @ 6:57pm | Report comment
No excuses reasons ? 50-50 calls not forward we were over twice or overrrrrr Yes i do recognise people who do mention it was a top defensive effort from Scotland Having played & followed the game in over four countries i also hear football is our game (it was Rugby last night) Nationalistic Jingoism Success ? we won you lost simple
Glen said | November 22nd 2009 @ 10:07pm | Report comment
Can’t you just be gracious in victory?
You won fair and square (for the first time in 27 years I hasten to add) and the Scottish defense was superb… now get over yourself!
As an excercise I have been scanning the international on-line news-sites for the past few years after Aussie losses and there is always a scathing criticism on the Aussie sites from OS posters yet rarely have I seen a smug remark on a UK (Ashes excluded), NZ or US sites when we do well and your lot lose.
I’m always amazed at the “arrogant” label that seems to be welded onto Aussie sides when we win as though we are not allowed to be proud. Pride and arrogance are two separate and different emotions.
Have a look at the English press if you want to see excuse after excuse!!!!! Renowned for their most used adjective “rubbish” when referring to any British sporting team of any press corp bar none… generally because it is a correct summation but more importantly, the Brits are great winners but crap at most sport and have to find excuses for every loss.
Hoot Mon!
Colin N said | November 22nd 2009 @ 10:25pm | Report comment
“I’m always amazed at the “arrogant” label that seems to be welded onto Aussie sides when we win as though we are not allowed to be proud.”
Apparently Genia said something about Banahan which wasn’t very gracious.
Also, Ricky Ponting isn’t a very good winner, especially in the 2006/07 Ashes, when the English had just been humiliated 5-0 and came out to shake their hand and say ‘well done’. Instead he ignored then and went on a ‘lap of honour’ with his side. He was later forced to appologise.
The English are very gracious in defeat I feel, especially rugby fans. What excuses are you talking about. There’s been no such thing in these Autumn internationals, for example.
Knives Out said | November 23rd 2009 @ 12:46am | Report comment
You don’t really have much of an argument, Glen. Australia is a in a sporting hole and the English press does not look for excuses (whic, btw, contradicts what you are saying about the use of the world ‘rubbish’).
Justin said | November 23rd 2009 @ 5:54am | Report comment
Rab – No sh!t sherlock
Rab said | November 25th 2009 @ 8:13pm | Report comment
Mr sherlock
Clown
Colin N said | November 22nd 2009 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
To be fair, Australians on this site haven’t looked for excuses.
anopinion said | November 22nd 2009 @ 4:20pm | Report comment
Actually most of the people posting have been saying the same thing for a long period of time. They restate long held views during this time as proof of their position. I have heard plenty of excuses coming from the mouths of Scots since 1982. The most common excuse from the Scots is that they “are s–t and offer World Rugby nothing of value, football is the Scottish game”.
Your comment says a bit about your lack of rugby acumen and also something about your nationalistic jingoism in times of success.
fox said | November 22nd 2009 @ 8:44am | Report comment
You got to throw the scots a bone evrey now and then! A terrible tragedy. It is a blessing that NZ TV broadcast (on the cable rugby channel) the Samoa v France game instead of this shambles so as to spare me the early morning torture!
KennyMac said | November 22nd 2009 @ 8:47am | Report comment
I’m with Jools-USA – never thought I’d hear myself saying it, but I’m glad I couldn’t find coverage of the game here in Los Angeles. Not just because the knife’s spun so hard in the colective chest of loyal supporters that even Horwill & Chisolm coud push a scrum machine through the resulting wound, but because if I had found coverage on the box, I would have brought yank mates as co-viewers with a clandestine mission to covert them to God’s game. That would’ve been difficult though, as it increasingly is, with a one try-to-nil, 9-8 scoreline in an International Test Match.
Nice article Loges.
tarpo said | November 22nd 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
This has to be the worst Wallaby team since…….1972?
This year hey have gone from promising to ordinary to terrible to patheic & now can only be considered Feeble!
Well writen Andrew & I agree with u Stillmissit, the Scots won a lineout where they misthrew the ball so badly it was caught below the jumpers waist!!! Of course nobody on the Wallas side was thinking of competing or was alert enough to pick this up. They probably would have knocked on anyway.
The lack of doing the Basics correctly is just so bad it is awful.
fred said | November 22nd 2009 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
its not the coaching tarpo its the lack of cattle;there is no cattle mate,all gone to abattoir in a truck driven by deans
Dean Pantio said | November 22nd 2009 @ 5:20pm | Report comment
No, since 1982. In 1973 the Wallabies lost to Tonga.
PeterB said | November 22nd 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
And what of the Australian Rugby Union?
“They will love us again when we start winning” (or at least words to that effect).
In the space of 10 years the ARU has turned the Wallabies from world beaters into @#$t eaters !!!!
They have chased the high end of town and have forgotten the supporter base.
If you or I were paid in the range of $100,000 and $500,000 and constantly failed we would be sacked !!! But it seems that the ARU is happy with the current arrangement.
If the ARU is concerned about a player exodus to Europe why should we be concerned? The current crop should be moved on.
dick c said | November 22nd 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
what happened to drawing the man before passing the pill. mate i learnt that in under 9’s. Even AAC who had the most go forward seems to forget this basic principle let alone the rest of them. Least the scrum was good but then we just blindly kick it away. Enough already. Robbie, robbie i must admit i only ever watched the crusaders when they played a oz team. But is this all he can come up with.
MM Fike said | November 22nd 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
I really believed that under Deans some of the basic skills would have improved. Skills like kicking for touch and passing.
It hasn’t happened.
We badly need two tough locks with lineout ability. The All Blacks have good locks as do South Africa and Ireland. In fact everyone has better locks than us.
I can see two more losses on this tour. Mentally we have to be shot to bits.
stillmissit said | November 22nd 2009 @ 10:02am | Report comment
Disagree MM Fike – Chisholm aint great but not bad either. We have a dreadful idea about what it takes to dominate at lineout time. We are singing from a hymn book about 7 years old where not to compete and avoiding the tough lineout competition has completely stuffed what should be an adequate performance.
Bulldog said | November 23rd 2009 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
You have got to kidding. Chisholm is seriously a joke. He has had numerous chances in The wallabies and he has never once stood up and dominated.
johnno42 said | November 22nd 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment
bro, its the cattle whats wrong… ya bought th beat coach in the world an he can’t make a difference… when is the light gonna come on for th ockers????
johnno42 said | November 22nd 2009 @ 9:54am | Report comment
sorry “best” not beat….
Tim said | November 22nd 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
My first reaction is to suggest we shelve the Wallabies until we can show our faces on the international stage again. Credit to a very brave Scotland team who defended fantastically.
While I like what Deans is doing with the team culture TommyM’s comment about the ability of the backline to convert pressure in to points was spot on. We need a specialist attack coach put in place to help Deans and bring back the flair of the great Wallabies teams.
I also think the Wales test would be a good opportunity to rest Giteau who looks tired and inneffective. Put QC in to fly half and O’Connor in at 12. Given there is nothing much to gain from the Wales test surely it is time to see how the team performs without Giteau at 10.
stillmissit said | November 22nd 2009 @ 10:15am | Report comment
Good call TIm will be an interesting week, if nothing happens then we know we are doomed and the RWC is a dream in the hands of a ghost. TommyM’s comments were right on the money.
fred said | November 22nd 2009 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
TIM LIKES DEANS KILLING THE CULTURE?incredible
Cattledog said | November 22nd 2009 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
Have to agree with that. Use Wales to blood some more combinations. But Giteau MUST be rested. All he seemed to do was abuse any player not doing what HE wanted. He spends the majority of the game looking like he lost a thousand pounds and found sixpence! He needs to put Firepower behind him!! lol Cross stuffed up, I’m sure the blast from Giteau really helped!
Rob said | November 22nd 2009 @ 10:13am | Report comment
I was hoping that Deans would be a breath of fresh air and that all aspects of Aust. rugby from administrators to players would see a cleaning out of the dead wood. If Deans is rebuilding is it still a work in progress or are some things so firmly entrenched that he won’t succeed? He has made some recent bold selections but as Spiro might say sometimes you don’t pick the best players you pick the best team combination.
I haven’t watched last nights game but did Giteau perform? Did he have any kicks charged down? Giteau might actually be the best 10 we have but he might be a better 12. Pick another 10 and be prepared to wear the consequences knowing that you might have Giteau playing better footy at 12.
As to Andrews point about Horwill and Chisolm. I think Horwill lost his confidence after getting belted by the Frenchman some time back and I don’t think he has recovered.
Just on locks part of what I was hoping with Deans was that he would introduce a culture that would reward workhorses not showponies. For years selectors at all levels would only pick locks who stood out physically and/or who were good ball runners. The unseen workhorses were unseen and therefore neglected. But rangy no 6’s were used as locks because they were good ball runners even though they did very little work in tight. Our mindset in Aust.( and a good example of this mindset is reflected by TV commentators) is shown when we praise the player running with the ball but don’t see the player who cleaned out an opponent forcing a turnover in possession.
Then there is the promotion of players for reasons other than ability. Chris Thompson from NSW–a veritable giant of a man has a very lazy workrate.Many in NSW playing circles thought Thommo was given a ride by people who wanted to ingratiate themselves with others.
And what about Nathan Sharpe? Was he better than what we thought? Would our lineouts still be in such a shambles if he were playing? I think the problem with Sharpe is that he was forced by coaches from Jones onwards to run the ball when he was not a ball runner. This made him look ordinary and took the gloss off other work that he did.
Any of you familiar with coaches at all levels know how many of them are obsessed by statistics. Many of them think that with an array of numbers it makes them sound as if they know what they are talking about. They can quote the obvious–how many meters gained, how many hit-ups etc but that is the limit to the depth of their understanding.
Those are the sorts of things I was hoping Deans would have influenced. The jury’s still out but time is ticking. But then that begs the question, what is the alternative?
stillmissit said | November 22nd 2009 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Spot on Rob – We must stop getting excited about tight 5 players running like gazelles and rucking like fairies. It shows our collective stupidity that must be known as the ‘Dunning affect’ and came out again in the Ireland game when Robinson made 30m’s. The major media’s total lack of understanding about anything rugby is what is causing and has caused us, as long as I remember, poor selections and pathetic performances from the tight 5 as they line up to ‘have a run’ and file there nails in the D as the hard work is done by others.
Ben C said | November 22nd 2009 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
“running like gazelles and rucking like fairies”
Priceless.
fred said | November 22nd 2009 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
WINNING
TommyM said | November 22nd 2009 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
Ironically though at one point we had a clear overlap out wide about 15m out and the ball was in Chisholm’s hand. Instead of sending it wide, he trundled it into 3 denfenders, was turned and gave away a penalty. I wryly thought to myeslf ‘Sharpey would have linked with the backline’ :S
Matt said | November 22nd 2009 @ 10:15am | Report comment
It is ridiculous how young this Wallaby side is. I think this is easily forgotten. Some people are saying that some of the players have been given too much of a chance. Who would you suggest replacing them with? I think Deans has made some very inciteful selection decisions from which Australia will benefit in a few years. Patience is really the key. They are a very inconsistent side but I think this reflects the average age and experience of the side. Lets not forget how terrible the 1999 RWC winning side was just a few years prior to that world cup.
Knives Out said | November 22nd 2009 @ 11:17am | Report comment
Matt, the side isn’t excessively young and it is actually quite experienced. I’m not saying that to denigrate the side but the youth theory doesn’t cut much mustard.
stillmissit said | November 23rd 2009 @ 7:04am | Report comment
Knives Out – I agree this is not so young a side (was 2 years ago) apart from the childish attitude to winning. The team wants to be hailed as the next best thing yet they wont do the hard work to make it happen. There is a lot of ‘latent’ talent in this team. I do not wear the ‘There ain’t no good cattle’ Story. These guys are missing only one ingredient and that is between the ears.
Even that is not true of all of them but there is enough of them not using their brains to swing the balance of lose our way. Moore not diving for the line in the wet is a classic example of this collective stupidity that can conjure losses out of winning situations.
Knives Out said | November 23rd 2009 @ 7:10am | Report comment
‘These guys are missing only one ingredient and that is between the ears.’
The game was there to be won yesterday. No doubt about it. I’ve made a brief comment on Spiro’s new article that it was wet and Scotland were limited. There was enough experience and leadership (there should have been at least) on the pitch to have worked out how to beat that Scotland side. The starting Australian XV had, on average, 37.6 caps per man whereas the Scots had 23.5 caps per man. Where was the tactical flexibility?
fred said | November 22nd 2009 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
“INCITEFUL” SELECTION IS PROBABLY RIGHT and knives is definitely right
Matt said | November 22nd 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Lets not forget that Scotland has sides coming second and third in the magners league and are known to punch well above their weight at home in those sorts of conditions.
Colin N said | November 22nd 2009 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
On paper, this Scotland side is good, but has very rarely produced. The defence was superb today, but I was a little disappointed in the backs. They have good strike runners in the Lamont brothers and Danielli, but they didn’t play that great.
They have three good scrum-halfs and I rate Godman, but he stood too deep for the Scottish centres to threaten the gain line. Nevertheless, Morrison is a shocking player and I can’t quite believe he is still in the side.
Tragic said | November 22nd 2009 @ 10:25am | Report comment
What was that line in ‘Fight Club’ of Tyler Durden’s? “You have to hit rock-bottom,” or something like that- basically the suggestion being you have to lose everything before you can gain everything. Is this rock-bottom? Its a pathetic thought that I like to entertain whenever one of these performances occurs with our ‘developing’ team, as if the grand plan of Deans was to put the wallabies thru this sort of catharsis in order to overhaul the culture of our national side. Well here we are. Its a bit damp down here, and dark. And before we climb the mountain we’ve got to get ground level.
I look forward to hearing the spin on this defeat. It looks like in the process of clearing the decks for a new generation of players Deans is engendering a culture of loss and despair with the new mob.
I never thought we would lose to Scotland, but it seems that these guys convinced themselves it was possible. Full credit to the Scots. A valiant effort and thoroughly deserved. They know a thing or two about rock-bottom i’m sure, maybe we could get a few pointers while we are in town…
Jeremy said | November 22nd 2009 @ 10:47am | Report comment
As a kiwi living in Melbourne I was a bit gutted when Deans left Canterbury to come to Australia and coach the Wallabies, my train of thought running something along the lines of ‘what happens when he gets them blokes in the right headspace and playing some decent rugby, the ABs are dead meat”
But I’m still to see some ‘decent rugby’ out of the Wallabies which is somewhat of a relief. Frankly I can’t understand how you tolerate this once-great team achieving the depths they’ve got to in 09. If this level of mediocrity occurred in NZ, someone would’ve burnt down the coach’s house by now.
So where to now, how do you build from here?
Rabbitz said | November 22nd 2009 @ 6:00pm | Report comment
What is his address? I’ve got a match…
Worlds Biggest said | November 22nd 2009 @ 10:54am | Report comment
another dark day to add to a gloomy chapter in Australian Rugby. This has to rank as one of the darkest days in recent memory. Great win for Scotland who defended galliantly however they are a pedsestrian outfit and losing to them is unforgivable IMO. I guess it was too much to expect the Wallabies to back up a great effort in Dublin and come out and beat the Scots convincingly which they should have done. Two absolute bombed tries and Giteau missing 3 very kickable penalties and the conversion. Other chances went begging as the composure went out the window once again. It was an 80 minute blunder a thon by the Wallabies. They would have prepared in wet conditions so no excuses. I am simply dumbfounded we could lose to Scotland. I never once bought into the Grand Slam hyperbole as it wasn’t realistic IMO. It would be an insult to 84 warriors who were an axcellent team with some great players including two of the all time greats. I guess you have to take the positives out of an abysmal effort and Palu was one of them along with Elsom and Genia. Giteau once again didn’t step up to the plate and confirmed 5/8 is not his position. He is clearly an overated player who doesn’t belong in the great category but more so in the very good. Cross is ponderous and crabs across field and should have been subbed for JOC. Others went MIA. I don’t know how the Wallabies can sink any lower at this point.
Even looser said | November 22nd 2009 @ 11:12am | Report comment
Not a bad summary at all.
Must say, and I’m not a huge fan of O’Connor yet, that his introduction brought immediate impact and all of a sudden we looked unpredictable and lethal. Shite………..before that it was pretty ordinary that’s for sure. So I wish Robbie would make use of the bench much better than he seems to like doing.
I have to wonder what Robbie will be thinking now. Has he a plan that makes the most of the players ability and they simply fail to implement it accurately OR is there something else going on here?
Dean Pantio said | November 22nd 2009 @ 11:17am | Report comment
Ha Haha Hahaaa HAAAAHAHAHAHA /end maniacal laughter
Well played Scotland. Well deserved!
The way it is! said | November 22nd 2009 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Well I have just woken up again from watching this latest Test farce from our Wallabies. Pocock should not have been rested so that is another Deans super coach moment? We had all the territory and ball yet coughed up the pill far to often. I know it was wet but it’s just not good enough. The Scottish replacement half was very good and from the post above a better player would have dived in for the try but unfortunately Moore is not that better player. Also why Cooper didn’t throw a flat pop pass to Cross in the situation when he opted for the long pass out wide has got me but Cross just doesn’t seem to work hard off the ball by getting into his running line early enough, if he did he would be so much better.
My mind is praying that Palu is ok as it looked very serious, he has been great so far on this tour so to lose him will not be good. Poor Git’s missing those goals was pathetic and we should have another kicker in the team. We all saw what occured last night and I’ve been crictical of Dean’s employment as Wallaby coach from day one so I would like to see him disappear back over the ditch where he once came.
If the squad that is over there is a direct reflection of our depth of Oz rugby, we are truely in a bit of trouble.
PastHisBest said | November 23rd 2009 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
“Pocock should not have been rested…”
Cobblers. If he needed a rest he needed a rest. Better the game against Scotland than next week against Wales.
As you say , Australia had enough pill and position to win three matches.
“Also why Cooper didn’t throw a flat pop pass to Cross in the situation when he opted for the long pass out wide ”
Now this I agree with. Cooper has now got it in his head from all the fawning media attention (Australian), over his long pass that he must throw it all the time. Putting it through the hands draws the opposition defenders. This would have been much more effective on a number of occasions.
Sammy22 said | November 22nd 2009 @ 11:22am | Report comment
First up well done Scotland……. they showed us that passion is alive and well.
And on the passion front seems to me that Deans has actually done the work for us to gain territory, possession, even scrummaging though line-outs a work in progress. Isn’t it actually the players desire and passion that takes the ball over the line and scores.. think Kefu with inspector gadget arms.
So if you end out with the best skilled group in the land with the best ability (I know you can always argue the individual players) getting the ball inside the opps 22 …. perhaps we need to chip in for a pysche to make the difference. Guess we expect that of the Coach but unless you can deliver an Alan Jones Chicken and Pig commitment story… its not happening!!!!
Kicking ……. well part of the problem here is the difference in attitude to the game from UK to Aus. Aus has being fortunate over the years to have times when you had Flats, Mortlock Eales and Larkham on the field sometimes at the same time, so wasn’t really a problem plus Aus thinking was much about, score tries kicks are just bonus or ways of snatching a win.
UK attitude is very much kicking is an important part of the game and you will make the team if you can, you will be responsible for Kicking and you are expected to score as part of the game
And last point ..when it gets this low its gets a lot easier to be optimistic for the future!!!!
ohtani's jacket said | November 22nd 2009 @ 11:27am | Report comment
The Wallabies had the wind taken out of their sails last weekend, and I think they’re in danger of losing to Wales too. With their Grand Slam chances over, the remaining matches are like the playoff for 3rd and 4th at the Rugby World Cup. Not that they should’ve lost to Scotland. They knew Scotland would make them play ugly.
The best thing that can happen to the Wallabies now is to close this tour out and disband. If I were Deans, I would tear up the team sheet and have no names on it for next season. The notion that this is a young team that can only get better is sadly mistaken. It’s a losing team that isn’t getting any better.
fred said | November 22nd 2009 @ 11:56am | Report comment
SANITY PREVAILS WITH OJ
stuff happens said | November 22nd 2009 @ 11:36am | Report comment
The Scottish tight forwards played out of their skins and did a great job for their country.Shades of Toulouse last week.
However,Australia still had enough ball but unfortunately we saw yet another example of Deans worst error as the coach – his insistence on keeping Matt Giteau at 10. How long have we been saying this at the roar?. The guy was a huge talent at 12 but is not a test 10.And as others have commented how many kicks do you miss before you change the kicker?
Good on you Scotland;Edinburgh would be a fun town tonight.
hammer said | November 22nd 2009 @ 11:38am | Report comment
How the f$&k is this team ranked #3 in the world ? And what does that say about the rest
Rob said | November 22nd 2009 @ 11:40am | Report comment
Just saw the replay and my first impressions, not an analysis, are that:
1) Aust.gets slow ball from the breakdown
2) 10,12,13 are young in their rugby heads. Put aside matches and experience, there are no dependable ( for want of a better word ) players in the mid-field. Are there any players out there in these positions who may be a bit slower, may not be as flashy but who can read a game ,provide leadership and steer the backs around the park.
3) Given 2 above it looks to me as if the players aren’t sure what they should be doing and they have no patience.
Rabbitz said | November 22nd 2009 @ 6:03pm | Report comment
So then how is it that 10,12 and 13 have gold jumpers? It is not a F%&*ing training camp.
If you are not up to the job, then p*%s off and let someone else do the job.
sheek said | November 22nd 2009 @ 11:42am | Report comment
Does anyone in the room still think that everything is just swimmingly well with Australian rugby, & we don’t need to make any changes to our domestic structures?
The national team’s performance usually, though not always, reflects those domestic structures in place.
What was good enough to carry Australian rugby through to the end of the 1900s, including two world cups, may no longer be good enough to carry us into the future. Especially as the game grows internationally, & other countries with greater populations & resources, will develop strong domestic structures of their own, in their thirst for success.
Strong domestic structures don’t always guarantee regular top level success (ditto All Blacks & Boks) but they do ensure that a country is never down for too long (ditto NZ & SA). Unlike the Wallabies, just ending their 5th successive year of general despair.
I thought this (the need for strong domestic structures) would have been fairly obvious 10 years, or even 5 years ago, but apparently not……….
Rabbitz said | November 22nd 2009 @ 6:07pm | Report comment
I don’t know about the under lying structures, but at this point the Newport under six’s could do a better job. Sack the lot of them and get some players who WILL play like they want to be there.
Geez what a farce – Hey Mr O’Neil, we do not accept this, nor will we put up with it. Grow some testicles and wield the axe. Find some players who give a rats arse and have some pride and some ability.
bennalong said | November 22nd 2009 @ 11:43am | Report comment
I came to this blog gutted and angry but reading the above has been cathartic.
I found myself going “but”……….”errrr but”, “yeah, but” as i read on.
This team did not play as I would have liked but they did cross the line five times.
They did, finally, pull off an O’Driscoll in good position for the conversion.
You can see Rocky scored on replay.
Quade Cooper’s pass certainly drifted foreward but it was sooooo loooonnngggg that I felt it was his hard running not his hands that propelled it foreward……………….Try. errrrrrrrrrr. Not allowed
My contention is that if any of these tries had been awarded the Scots would have succumbed to tiredness and the game would have been different.
This team is up and down in confidence, we know that, and Giteau having been effectively demoted, is taking poor options. All these tries denied, in a confident team would have resulted in all out attack to squash the relieved Scots.
Instead the Scots played as if God was on their side, still never looked like scoring, but appeared bgger/better than they were to the Wallaby backs, who started playing as if the Scots were the ones getting over.
Instead Giteau kept setting up pointing left and kicking left. No curl. No correction. No goal
Not the teams fault.
They outplayed the Scots who played out of their skins defending. We should have won.
The god of games laughed and gave it to the losers.Bastard.
fred said | November 22nd 2009 @ 11:53am | Report comment
YEAH WE WERE TERRIBLY UNLUCKY;aw well back to the day ward
Cattledog said | November 22nd 2009 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
Rocky scored…no he didn’t. Coopers momentum. Nope, forward pass. Your last sentence…a cracker!! LOL
Bill said | November 22nd 2009 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
Cattledog – where are your glasses? The replays show Rocky clearly grounding the ball before being rolled over.
Cattledog said | November 22nd 2009 @ 5:15pm | Report comment
Bill, I actually put them on to watch the replays. The body language of the team waiting for the scrum, rather than showing brevado and moving back to the halfway was a giveaway, as was the fact the TMO, looking at all angles, couldn’t ‘clearly’ see it as well as you! Would love to think we were hard done by, but not in this case.
Another example of why penalties and drop goals should be 2 and a conversion from a try 3!
Matt0931 said | November 22nd 2009 @ 8:45pm | Report comment
Elsom didn’t ground the ball.
I know the coomentators is Aus will have you believe otherwise but there was no way that was a try. It was clearly held up and was a good decision by the refs.
exile said | November 22nd 2009 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
Cooper’s pass was definitely forward from the hands, as were at least two other of his passes which the ref didn’t pick up. I have heard it said that a good player actually finds it hard to pass forwards, as the correct passing movement is so ingrained. It’s poor that Cooper still lacks this basic skill.
Harry said | November 22nd 2009 @ 11:48am | Report comment
Guys befoe this tour I predicted it was going to be more like the 81 Nh tour than the triumphant 84 tour. Reason being is that although we did have strengths we also have glaring weaknesses (agree with the players Andrew signalled out, plus the wings, particularly Mitchell, who can’t tackle at all and always makes at least one dumb clanger a game to go with his string of missed tackles.
I have consistently said we are at our weakest for 25 years. The results show this. Most of you have grown into beleiving we have a top 3 place by right, much like the stupid cheerleading media who will be out in force all week sinking the boot. Look at the formline in recent years – we have been average at test level and woeful in the S14 in 08 and 09, and of course the disasterous decision to axe the ARC is now being shown as the folly it undoutbedly was.
If we learn some much-needed humility from this defeat, by a courageous and well drilled Scottish side (they also score the occasional win against France and England, we ahve no devine right to vistory) then that might finally be a good thing.
I also suspected the Wallabies were gone at half time. 1005 agree with these sentences Andrew …
At half time they had made twice as many tackles as their counterparts, and instead of wearing them down, it seemed to invigorate them, as they realised that the Wallabies (Palu aside) didn’t want to do the hard yards with the ball in hand or at the breakdown. Eventually the pressure told and the Scots realised the truth of the worst kept secret in international rugby – that the Wallabies would implode if they kept the pressure on.
The good news is we will now surely be underdogs next week and, indeed, well into 2010. Taking the long view, I truly think we are not far away from being a world-leading side, not something I have honestly thought since 2003.
I will be supporting the Wallabies next week, as always hoping they play hard and attractive rugby.
Joh4Canberra said | November 22nd 2009 @ 11:50am | Report comment
I’m actually glad we lost against Scotland. Had we won this test and gone through undefeated for the clayton’s grand slam (or shudder to think even managed to snatch a win against Ireland and claim an actual grand slam) there would have been too much self-congratulation to mask the glaring weaknesses in the Wallabies’ game. So, all in all, losing to Scotland was a much needed reality check of the health of Australian rugby at the moment. I would like to think that this will be a turning point and that the Wallabies will learn and move on from it. But will they? That is the $64,000 question.
Joe FC said | November 22nd 2009 @ 11:58am | Report comment
There is a world of difference in seeking to learn from failure than rejoicing in it.
sheek said | November 22nd 2009 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
Joe,
I actually can relate to Joh. Clearly, I don’t think the message is getting through that we have major problems in our game that won’t be solved overnight. Several months back when we beat the Boks, far too many people were carrying on as if we had turned the corner, & everything will be alright. On the basis of just ONE game!!!
Clearly, things aren’t alright & won’t be for some time. And regrettably, Australian rugby as a whole won’t get the message until we sink further into the abyss. Too many of us simply refuse to acknowledge the reality that there is a lot wrong with our game, from the Wallabies down to falling junior development.
Joh4Canberra said | November 23rd 2009 @ 12:45am | Report comment
Not “glad” at the fact we lost, but “glad” rather in the sense that the loss provides a true diagnosis of the state of Australian rugby and a win (even a grand slam) would have provided us with a false diagnosis. It’s like a diagnosis from a doctor. Obviously you shouldn’t be “glad” about the fact of being in ill health. But you should be “glad” to receive a true diagnosis of your condition rather than be misdiagnosed and told that you’re in good health when you’re patently not. Obviously I’d rather not have something like cancer. But given a choice between (1) having cancer and being correctly diagnosed and (2) having it and being misdiagnosed and told I’m in good health when I’m not I would much prefer the former. That is the sense in which I’m “glad” we lost.
I am not glad that Australian rugby is in poor health and that we lost. I am glad that the loss has served to diagnose the poverty of our health so that something can be done about it instead of thinking everything is fine when it clearly is not.
Hansie said | November 22nd 2009 @ 11:58am | Report comment
Congratulations to Scotland for a well deserved victory. I don’t know how the IRB calculates world rankings, but surely Australia should be ranked around the 6-8 mark, not at #3. The harsh reality is that Deans has taken the team backwards over the last two years. I assume that John O’Neill will be Mr Invisible this week.
Harry said | November 22nd 2009 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
Can I just ask one spiteful thing … that they all shave their stupid looking moustaches off this week. And donate their losers fee to the Movember appeal.
Cattledog said | November 22nd 2009 @ 2:15pm | Report comment
I would go a step further and suggest Wallaby teams not to tour in Movember. They looked more like a bunch of porn stars than rugby players!
rugbyskier said | November 23rd 2009 @ 8:45am | Report comment
They may have looked like porn stars but they didn’t perform.
PastHisBest said | November 23rd 2009 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
…and when the money shot was required, Git(’s ) got a case of stage fright.
Uncle Eric said | November 23rd 2009 @ 4:13pm | Report comment
Hear hear Harry, or should I say hair hair!
Dopey said | November 22nd 2009 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
I gave up blaiming the players during the Tri – Nations. I’ve come to the realisation that it is not their fault. They are trying their best but they simply aren’t good enough. It’s not their fault – it the administrators.
The NZRU and SARFU are bringing players fresh out of the NPC and the Currie Cup. Our players are coming out of the high performance environment of the ….wait for it….Shute Shield!!!!!!! (and even that finished in bloody August).
Our high performance pathway is second class – and the wallabies are a bi-product of its high performance system. For so long we have succeeded in spite of ourselves thanks largely to some prodigously talented individuals (Gregan, Larkham, Roff, Eales, Smith et al). But the rest of the world has caught up (and overtaken). We need an overhaul of our domestic competition structure – until then our depth will always be a problem.
Congratulations to Scotland and all the best to the Wallabies against Wales. Still behind you fellas.
Working Class Rugger said | November 22nd 2009 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
Dopey
No, it is the player’s. It’s not the coaching staff or admin who are creating new and exciting was not to score tries. Or revolutionising needless losses. Neither of the first 2 are by any means perfect but it’s the basic’s the stuff you learn as a tyke that are letting us down and the blame is squarely on the player’s.
fred said | November 22nd 2009 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
who selects,coaches and has training camps before devising tactics?who gets paid for this?blame the cattle
Working Class Rugger said | November 22nd 2009 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
Fred
I’m not saying the Coaching staff and Admin aren’t flawed. They are. But it wasn’t Robbie Deans or JON losing the ball at crucial moments or taking the worng option time and time again. When the team is on the field they and they alone are responsible for how they play. The coaches may set tactics but it’s up to the player’s to choose whether to kepp playing them or change. And it’s up to the player’s to put in the time and effort to clean up the basic handling and decision making skills that time after time let them down.
Dopey said | November 22nd 2009 @ 6:42pm | Report comment
WCRF, Fred,
I agree with you both. They played appallingly.
My point is – they just aren’t good enough. They are the product of a flawed system. We pick the wallabies from 4 S14 teams. The underpinning system is an amateur rugby competition comprising a sprinkling of S14 players and weekend warriors.
How can you expect the Shute Shield to produce players capable of defeating the best teams in the world? You can’t.
So yes – the players wrre awful. Their skills are flawed. But when you’re honing those skills against weekend warriors and nuff-nuffs what do you expect?
Working Class Rugger said | November 22nd 2009 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
Well, I won’t be watching next week’s game. Last night the Wallabies proved that the better team can lose even when they should have romped home. What the hell is running through these supposed ‘professional’ footballer’s heads. Obvious answer. Absolutely nothing. I never thought the day would come when I would choose to miss a Wallabies fixture but hey our current crop were just that bad.
The the most frustrating thing about the game was when we ran the ball at speed it looked inevitable that we would sweep the Scots aside and easily account for them. But time after time either aimless, mindless kicking would be employed or we’d fail to execute the most basic of skills when they really needed to. It’s great to see glimpse’s of what they could offer and at times you could actually see it but far the majority of the game they were atrocious. Scotland offered absolutely nothing in attack or creativity but our mindset of playing a conservative kicking game is killing us. And for one I’m sick of it. Mindless, stupid running playing away from our obvious strengths.
On to the player’s. Far and away our best was Palu. Until his injury he’s running was bullocking and really tested thge Scots. On the other hand Cross was rubbish as was Mitchell. AAC had a decent game and looked dangerous every time he ran the ball, Cooper had his moments ( must keep running the ball). Hynes. Well, sorry to the Hynes fans out there but he hasn’t offered anything more than Turner did. He doesn’t break the line or create space. I wonder why he isn’t being as heavily critised as Turner was because so far there hasn’t been any difference.
Horwill and Chisholm. Or as I like to call them “tweedle-di and tweedle-dum”. There could not be to more useless lumps out there last night. Non-events the both of them. The front row was good without being great and both Elsom and Smithy had quiet games. And of course Giteau. Let’s get this clear. He is by no imagination a international Rugby goalkicker. Not by a long shot. And his ball play isn’t much better. I mentioned earlier in the week that I distain the lack of endeavour the Wallabies have when given penalties on the attack. I was told by one Roarer that we had to take the points when we could because the other option was too risky. Well, what was the scoreline last night. Did Giteau kick us to victory. No. Going for the corner wouldn’t have hurt us a bit. When will this team realise. KICKING IS NOT OUR GO!. When they run the look and are genuinely dangerous but don’t do it enough. Blood needs to be let. Guys like Cross should never pull on the jersy ever again.
Harry said | November 22nd 2009 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
Was Chisolm actually playing last night? I can’t remember ever seeing him run the ball, be anywhere near the breakdown or win a lineout.
fred said | November 22nd 2009 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
WHO DEVISES THE TACTICS?the baggage man
kingplaymaker said | November 22nd 2009 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
Working great to see someone at last who understands how bad Mitchell, Hynes were and Turner has been. The wings are laming the team at the moment.
By the way, does anyone know who the official man of the match was?
Sammy22 said | November 22nd 2009 @ 1:40pm | Report comment
FYI
From the Scot Rugby site link below
“Man-of-the-match Phil Godman contributed six points (two penalties) while replacement Chris Paterson nailed the all-important drop-goal to clinch a famous Hopetoun Cup triumph.”
http://www.scottishrugby.org/content/view/620/2/
kingplaymaker said | November 22nd 2009 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
Thanks very much Sammy.
Can’t see how in a million years Phil Godman played better rugby than Wycliff Palu, but I suppose the winning team on a day like that will get the award.
Working Class Rugger said | November 22nd 2009 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
Harry
Hence why I called him a useless lump.
Harry said | November 22nd 2009 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
Well I’m about to open a beer and watch the replay after a good afternoon at the beach. I shall keep my eyes pealed for Chis – at least with Horwill I can recall him makeing a few runs up the middle, wining a lineout and making a tackle. But yes they are both useless.
Harry said | November 22nd 2009 @ 8:12pm | Report comment
Folks, I have watched the replay (well the first half, i don’t think I can handle the seond half) and I can report that yes Chisolm was indeed on the field last night. So far the only time I have seen him touching the ball is when he flops down in posession twice and turn the ball over – and both times in our attacking 22, and loses a lineout on our throw.
Tony Montana said | November 22nd 2009 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
I never liked those ‘cacaroaches’. In the last ten years this is easily the worst Wallabies team to misrepresent the nation. Opportunities opened up time after time and perhaps we should have resigned ourselves to a loss when even before the match ‘the line’ was that they were prepared to ‘win ugly’. Lose consistently is more appropriate, or even ‘Lose disgracefully’. It is very clear that some personnel must be changed as this team is too accustomed to loss. The last 60 seconds vs Ireland they found it easy to lose, the last 120 seconds vs Scotland they found it hard to win.
On to Wales for the final indignity, just when you thought it could’nt get any worse – It Does !
Brett McKay said | November 22nd 2009 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
Firstly, great write-up Loges, right on the money. Secondly, full credit to Scotland, I can’t recall a Scottish team defending so intensely, and with interest. Admittedly, I haven’t seen much of them in recent years.
Thirdly, um……..
I must agree with OJ above, I had a really bad feeling about this game after the let down of the draw in Dublin, and while I didn’t think Australia could lose to Scotland, I didn’t think it would be easy. I raised my eyebrows at Loges’ 19 point prediction even. How they come back will be interesting. The Wallabies could just as easily give Wales a touch-up has they could cop a(nother) Wellington thrashing.
I’m going to hold off on naming names, becuase it’s all been said above, except that I won’t say “I told you so” about Ryan Cross.
Has Palu been cleared, or is there an update of any sorts?? Credit to Scots medical staff too, for the way they rushed in an assisted, great to see.
kingplaymaker said | November 22nd 2009 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
Brett Palu’s been ex-rayed and there’s no serious damage luckily.
Unfortunately for Australia, I doubt they’ll risk him for the next match though as it’s the last of the season.
Brett McKay said | November 22nd 2009 @ 1:29pm | Report comment
thanks KPM, and you may well be right…
kingplaymaker said | November 22nd 2009 @ 1:43pm | Report comment
Brett it’s odd to say this at such a low point, but Palu’s last four matches have represented a great find for Australia. He has given them the forward momentum that it takes some teams a whole pack to produce, he has crushed the opposition’s forward momentum with mammoth tackles and he has shown suprising delicacy as a linkman to the backs.
It will have boosted his confidence hugely to have had a run of international form like this, and he could well allow the Wallabies pack to match anyone in the world in physicality, even South Africa.
Already is there a more dangerous ball runner in the forwards in world rugby than him?
In some ways in seemed symbolic that at such a dark hour it was Palu of all the players to go down injured.
Colin N said | November 22nd 2009 @ 10:02pm | Report comment
“Already is there a more dangerous ball runner in the forwards in world rugby than him?”
Talk about hyping up a player
Knives Out said | November 23rd 2009 @ 12:41am | Report comment
Palu can single handed allow the Wallaby pack to match any pack in the world… even South Africa, and he has single handed crushed packs by himself.
Lol.
kingplaymaker said | November 23rd 2009 @ 3:03am | Report comment
KO all you’ve showed there is you can mis-quote me:
‘he could well allow the Wallabies pack to match anyone in the world in physicality, even South Africa. ‘ becomes in your rendition ‘Palu can single handed allow the Wallaby pack to match any pack in the world… even South Africa’.
While ‘he has crushed the opposition’s forward momentum with mammoth tackles’ becomes with you ‘he has single handed crushed packs by himself.’
Congratulations on mis-quoting, a substitute for your usual lack of any ideas of your own or argument.
Cattledog said | November 23rd 2009 @ 3:24am | Report comment
Touche!
Knives Out said | November 23rd 2009 @ 6:32am | Report comment
I think you’ll find that the term is ‘paraphrasing’. Obviously you’re not a fan of satire?
If you want to talk actual rugby then I’m more than happy. What your accusation forgets is that you have been pulled up countless times about your inability/unwillingness to qualify your various wild and broad statements. I haven’t. It is ironic in the extreme that you would suggest I lack ideas when your initial comments about Palu require legitimisation. How, for example, could a number 8 help a pack match another pack physically? When has Palu crushed a forward pack’s momentum? You claim that Palu is the most dangerous carrier in the world game. What does that even mean? Are you referring to off-loading, his power and/or his ability to break tackles? Have you ever heard of James Haskell, Sione Lauki, Pierre Spies, Andy Powell, Ma’a Nonu, Jamie Roberts, Jamie Heaslip, Napolioni Nalaga etc?
PastHisBest said | November 23rd 2009 @ 1:58pm | Report comment
“Already is there a more dangerous ball runner in the forwards in world rugby than him?”
Umm, Pierre Spies? Ryan Kankowski? Sergio Parisse? Juan Martín Fernández Lobbe? And they are only the number 8’s, without me even going into players from other positions? Think before you write please.
Far out man, you’ve got some work to do to make that dog fetch…
And that ain’t a mis-quote.
kingplaymaker said | November 22nd 2009 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
Brett one more point: I felt it looked ominous the moment I saw rain.
The same thing happened two years ago at Murrayfield when Brian Ashton’s England, after an impressive victory over France, were prevented by the slippery conditions from running the ball effectively and ground into the turf by big scots defending proudly, and kicking the leather off the ball. Despite thrashing Ireland in the next match, Ashton was subsequently (and wrongly) replaced.
In a grim fortress like Murrayfield rain is a serious danger even for the best sides.
Colin N said | November 22nd 2009 @ 10:07pm | Report comment
“The same thing happened two years ago at Murrayfield when Brian Ashton’s England, after an impressive victory over France, were prevented by the slippery conditions from running the ball effectively and ground into the turf by big scots defending proudly, and kicking the leather off the ball.”
The French performance was based on defence from England and against Scotland England were woeful, who lacked any ideas in the backs. In fact, it was probably the worst England display I’d ever seen. At least Australia exerted pressure on their opposition. Whereas, Scotland were so much better than England in every facet of the game on that day.
Knives Out said | November 22nd 2009 @ 10:16pm | Report comment
‘Despite thrashing Ireland in the next match, Ashton was subsequently (and wrongly) replaced.’
Lol. That’s hilarious.
kingplaymaker said | November 23rd 2009 @ 12:25am | Report comment
Colin it was a reasonable attacking performance against France too. The Scotland performance wasn’t great, but certainly no worse than most England performances this year. Scotland certainly were not so much better than England in every facet of the game that day. Be realistic, MJ has lost four out of the last five games, and no rewriting of the past will improve his record.
Knives Out said | November 23rd 2009 @ 12:39am | Report comment
‘The Scotland performance wasn’t great, but certainly no worse than most England performances this year.’
This statement is nonsensical.
‘Be realistic, MJ has lost four out of the last five games, and no rewriting of the past will improve his record.’
Nobody is trying to re-write the past other than you. Johnson has lost four of the last five games against higher rated opposition. However, if you go back six games then Johnson has won two of the last six games, and if you go back 8 games then Johnson has won four of the last eight games. That’s called cherry-picking. Are you a cherry merchant?
Viscount Crouchback said | November 23rd 2009 @ 1:44am | Report comment
Knives, are you not a little embarrassed that a Wallaby team that is being assailed by all and sundry has still beaten England at Twickenham for two years in succession?
I know I am.
Knives Out said | November 23rd 2009 @ 2:56am | Report comment
Yes and no, VC. Currently I’m blissfully swimming in a pool of casual indifference. England has some damn bad injuries, and that’s all I’m willing to admit. If the 6N does not go well then suitable blame must be doled out, but until then I’m going to say that Australia has caught England at fortunate points in their transition. I firmly believe that had various players been fit that England would have beaten Australia, and that in two years England will be in a strong position to challenge for the WC.
Realistically, if the Scotland v Australia test was to be replayed 100 times then Australia would most likely win 99 times. The Scottish scrum struggled, the lineout was messy and the backline played too deep and with no real invention. I really can’t see them being a force and I suspect that they will struggle badly this coming 6N. It’s gone largely unnoticed that Italy were quite good against SA.
kingplaymaker said | November 23rd 2009 @ 3:18am | Report comment
And if you tot it all up, Johnson has lost 9 of his last 14 games, winning against the might of Italy, Scotland, injury-ridden Argentina, and the hapless French.
Well done for supporting him, it shows you are a great judge of rugby. I’m sure you think he is the best choice to manage England.
kingplaymaker said | November 23rd 2009 @ 3:21am | Report comment
KO England has some injuries, and I suppose Stirling Mortlock and Berrick Barnes don’t count as injuries?
Knives Out said | November 23rd 2009 @ 3:56am | Report comment
Oh dear… more dreary misinformation.
Under England Johnson experienced their best 6N since 2003. They scored the most amount of tries since 2003. Both Ireland and Wales said that England was their toughest opponent of the 6N.
The hapless French? Lol. That’s a good one.
An injury ravaged Argentina! Wow. What about the thrashing doled out to the Argentina first team?
‘KO England has some injuries, and I suppose Stirling Mortlock and Berrick Barnes don’t count as injuries?’
Am I to take this seriously or are you showing us all what a great sense of humour you are? Firstly, I cannot find a single comment whereby anybody has denied that Australia has injuries. Australia is missing Sharpe, Barnes and Mortlock. Now, if you think that is commensurate with the injuries that Johnson has to deal with then I can only conclude that whatever institution educated you failed to develop your mathematical horizons. Surely an Oxbridge eduacted England fan is aware of the English injury list. Are you?
Colin N said | November 23rd 2009 @ 1:57am | Report comment
“Colin it was a reasonable attacking performance against France too”
No it wasn’t. The first try came from a knock-on and the second was when England were running down the clock, whereby Wigglesworth spotted a half gap to score. Both sets of backs were incredibly lateral and offered virtually no threat.
“The Scotland performance wasn’t great, but certainly no worse than most England performances this year”
Again no, the performances this year have eclipsed those from the Scottish game in 2008. Even the Argentina performance was better than that rubbish dished up on that day. At least England got quick ball in the second-half against Argentina.
“Scotland certainly were not so much better than England in every facet of the game that day”
Yes they were better, that’s why they won. They dominated the breakdown, their kicking game was better, they even had more invention in the backs, but more crucially, they made less mistakes.
“Be realistic, MJ has lost four out of the last five games, and no rewriting of the past will improve his record.”
Basically what KO said, you’re cherry picking. It’s like saying Brian Ashton was in charge for the 36-0 drubbing against South Africa and he also took us to our worst ever defeat against Ireland if you remember?
I judge on what I see (unlike some people who form a stereotype and keep to it, whatever happens afterwards), and England have played far better rugby under MJ than Brian Ashton and Andy Robinson. Johnson’s been very unlucky as in the six nations, England started to get some continuity, but with the injuries, we’ve completely lost that unfortunately. It’s as though he has start from scratch again.
kingplaymaker said | November 23rd 2009 @ 3:15am | Report comment
Colin MJ seems to have a mountain of bad luck. Firstly he gets hammered in his first three games but that’s ok because he has just taken charge. Then he is convincingly beaten by Wales and Ireland but that’s ok because his team is growing. Then he loses to a Barbarians side who are destroyed the next week by Australia, and again to Argentina, but it’s all ok because of a few players away with the Lions. Now a few injuries justify two bad losses to Australia and New Zealand and a horrendous performance against Argentina.
So much bad luck! Or is he just a bad manager/coach?
Ashton had bad moments, but the team was progressing, and after the drubbing by South Africa you mention he took the team to the World Cup final, as you intentionally fail to mention.
His teams had far more quality and invention that Johnson’s.
His real mistake was his fear of selecting a team designed mainly to attack, despite being an attacking minded coach. Hence Jonny Wilkinson was played in front of Danny Cipriani, Jamie Noon in place of Matthew Tait, Toby Flood in place of Shane Geraghty.
In terms of tactical coaching he was superb, in terms of selecting players with the raw attacking ability to pull off his designs, he was fearful, and that was his downfall.
However, there has never been a worse attacking England backline than the one that took the field yesterday.
pothale said | November 23rd 2009 @ 3:34am | Report comment
Kingplay
I thought you were an England supporter – no?
Colin N said | November 23rd 2009 @ 3:35am | Report comment
“Firstly he gets hammered in his first three games but that’s ok because he has just taken charge”
Yes, you are correct, that is the reason. Arguably, in those games, England played too much rugby.
“Then he is convincingly beaten by Wales and Ireland but that’s ok because his team is growing.”
Convincingly? England played more expansive rugby than Wales and were let down by their discipline. They only lost to Ireland by one point, so it was hardly convincing. It’s not like it was a 30 points difference like it was in 2007.
“Ashton had bad moments, but the team was progressing, and after the drubbing by South Africa you mention he took the team to the World Cup final, as you intentionally fail to mention.”
But judging by reports, it wasn’t he who was responsible for turning round England’s fortunes, it was apparently the ‘old guards’ sheer bloody mindedness that got them there.
“Then he loses to a Barbarians side who are destroyed the next week by Australia, and again to Argentina, but it’s all ok because of a few players away with the Lions.”
But you fail to mention they beat Argentina convincingly in June and the Barbarians side was very talented and that England side was pretty experimental.
“His teams had far more quality and invention that Johnson’s.”
Where?
“His real mistake was his fear of selecting a team designed mainly to attack, despite being an attacking minded coach. Hence Jonny Wilkinson was played in front of Danny Cipriani, Jamie Noon in place of Matthew Tait, Toby Flood in place of Shane Geraghty.”
Here, you’ve contradicted yourself.
I don’t believe England are in any great shakes by any means, but I would give Johnson until after the 2011 world cup and I think there has been far more progress under him than Ashton or Robinson.
A question for KO, does MJ do any coaching?
If not, surely the blame should lay at the feet of Smith, Ford and Wells then? Wilkinson’s got the ability to stand flat, why doesn’t he do it?
Personally, I rate Brian Smith, but I believe the problem is Ford and Wells and their obsession with looking after the ball, rather than smashing people out of the breakdown and getting quick ball.
kingplaymaker said | November 23rd 2009 @ 4:20am | Report comment
KO I’m afraid losing players of the calibre of Mortlock and Barnes is far more significant than the mediocre stuff England has lost. Arguably the reserves England have had are better than the second-raters MJ selects.
MJ’s team was well beaten this six nations.
In case you didn’t notice, England just narrrowly beat an Argentina with their two best backs, Fernandez and Contemponi, injured, so hardly the first team.
They lost twice to Argentina this year, against two sides weakened by injury. Well done.
The French were truly appalling that day.
What’s amusing is you seriously think MJ and England are doing well. They’ve doing great!
Knives Out said | November 23rd 2009 @ 4:30am | Report comment
‘KO I’m afraid losing players of the calibre of Mortlock and Barnes is far more significant than the mediocre stuff England has lost. Arguably the reserves England have had are better than the second-rates MJ selects.’
1. The Australian back line has been poor all year.
2. A lot of Roarers have commented that Ioane provided a spark that has been absent for a long time.
3. Barnes and Mortlock missed chunks of the 3N therefore the management and team had plenty of time to get used to their absence.
4. Even a nascent understanding of the sport of rugby union would give the average person the knowledge to realise that missing 25 players is not good, especially players the calibre of Sheridan, Shaw etc.
5. You cannot critique the selection of Johnson when you praise Ashton for selecting the same players.
–
‘MJ’s team was well beaten this six nations.’
Yes, well beaten into the best finish since 2003 having scored the most amount of tries since 2003. How well beaten was Ashton’s England then?
–
‘In case you didn’t noticed, England just narrrowly beat an Argentina with their two best backs, Fernandez and Contemponi, injured, so hardly the first team.’
In case you didn’t ‘noticed’ England just narrowly beat an Argentina team with the majority of their best backs absent.
–
‘They lost twice to Argentina this year, against two sides weakened by injury. Well done.’
No they didn’t. They lost to Argentina once. Well done.
When England played Argentina in the summer the Argentines had their best players available. Well done.
–
‘The French were truly appalling that day.’
The French were truly appalling because England destroyed their lineout, beat them comprehensively at the ruck contest and counter attacked accurately and effectively. Pretty much what France did to NZ and SA. Most rugby fans understand that France plays a pretty basic brand of rugby which relies on winning the physical battle up front. England did that. We hardly saw a litany of French errors and the usual Gallic infighting.
–
What’s amusing is that you’re pretending to be an English rugby union fan from England.
Colin N said | November 23rd 2009 @ 4:46am | Report comment
“In case you didn’t notice, England just narrrowly beat an Argentina with their two best backs, Fernandez and Contemponi, injured, so hardly the first team.”
But hammered an Argentina try in June with Hernandez.
“KO I’m afraid losing players of the calibre of Mortlock and Barnes is far more significant than the mediocre stuff England has lost.”
We’ve been over this, it’s a continuity thing. Also, England lost Sheridan, a far better player than Payne. Vickery – A better player than Wilson and Bell. Shaw (for the first two tests) – a faer better player than Deacon. Easter – a better eight than Haskell. Haskell played well, but still has plenty to learn at 8, as emphasised by the previous two matches.
Also lost Ellis and Flood, key to England’s back play in the last six nations. Flutey, who formed an excellent partnership with Flood, and eventually grew into the role. Geraghty was poor this Autumn. Tindall – a far better player than Hipkiss atm. Armitage – a huge miss, forced Cueto and Monye out of position. So yes, England’s injuries had a huge impace on the side.
“The French were truly appalling that day.”
As were Irealand against England in 2008, aka it’s irrelevant.
cookie said | November 22nd 2009 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
How about comments like ‘well done Scotland’?
It’s a two horse race, and somebody has to lose…..at least most of the time unless your watching that round ball game then in that case sometimes somebody gets to win.
Sure Australia aren’t exactly world class right now and the Scots aren’t exactly either….. but they won and they played with heart and determination and made the walllabies look poorer than they probably are. So credit due where credits due.
I don’t think any team at this point really looks the goods. Sure SA are ahead of the pack and NZ aren’t that far off the pace but other than that its a pretty even ball game across the park… Isn’t that what rugby fans want? Surely we are all good enough sports to follow the game when our team doesn’t win and stop bloody whinging about it?
So come the world cup….. will there be 10+ genuine contenders who on their day can beat the best?
RE> Deans….
Is anyone else beginning to wonder if this whole thing is a Kiwi conspiracy?
They let us have Deans knowing he was going to kill the wallabies?
Cattledog said | November 22nd 2009 @ 2:53pm | Report comment
LOL I mentioned the conspitacy theory some time back…just didn’t think the NZRU were that clever…maybe I was wrong…
Joh4Canberra said | November 23rd 2009 @ 12:22am | Report comment
A few others here have already said ‘well done Scotland’ and this Australian is not ashamed to join in the chorus. You’re right: it is a two horse race and the Scots won and let’s not take anything away from Scotland. That was one of the best defensive efforts I’ve ever seen. So hats off to the Scots.
But realistically Scotland won because of two things: (1) Their own excellent defensive efforts and (2) the Wallabies’ failure to take their opportunities. That the Wallabies failed to score more tries and goals wasn’t entirely down to the brilliant defence of the Scots. Sure, in part it was and the Scots deserve full credit for that. But it was also in part due to poor decision making and execution by the Wallabies. That seems to be the point under discussion here and discussing that point doesn’t negate the enormity of the Scots’ efforts without which they would not have won the match. Discussing this point should not be seen as a slight on Scotland’s efforts but rather as a bunch of people discussing *one* aspect of the game — namely the Wallabies’ failings.
But once again, hats off to the Scots. They can be proud of that defensive effort.
kingplaymaker said | November 23rd 2009 @ 3:43am | Report comment
pohale I am, and the best thing that could happen to England now would be if Johnson were fired and an experienced coach were appointed. He’s the most astounding catastrophe for English rugby. He hasn’t got the first clue what he’s doing, who he’s selecting, how to manage, coach, do anything. A horror show.
kingplaymaker said | November 23rd 2009 @ 3:51am | Report comment
Wales and Ireland were the convincing victors in those matches: I didn’t say they smashed England, but beat them convincingly.
The idea that the players were responsible for the World Cup performance is a myth propagated by some disgruntled players unhappy at being left on the bench or out of the team. The coach should take credit for the revival, as he should for the good victories against France and Ireland in the following six nations.
In Ashton’s final match, Cipriani orchestrated a series of brilliant attacking plays that tore apart the Irish. The forwards were dynamic and mobile. This is the kind of performance a real coach like Ashton could produce, and that Johnson cannot.
I don’t put Ashton beyond reproach, but only in not backing himself to select boldly, so there’s no contradiction there.
The Barbarians were not very good: Australia put 50 points past them in their sleep the next week. England were truly a joke.
I can’t see what kind of progress results in losing 4 of the last 6 games. Is that progress?
Knives Out said | November 23rd 2009 @ 4:11am | Report comment
‘Wales and Ireland were the convincing victors in those matches: I didn’t say they smashed England, but beat them convincingly.’
Various Welsh and Irish players both noted that England was their toughest opponent in the 6N. Gethin Jenkins even went so far as to note that the test versus England was one of the toughest ever matches (the top 3) that he had ever played in. In any case, if you think those victories were convincing then I’d be intrigued to know what adjective you would use to describe the results against Ireland and Wales during Ashton’s tenure.
‘The idea that the players were responsible for the World Cup performance is a myth propagated by some disgruntled players unhappy at being left on the bench or out of the team. The coach should take credit for the revival, as he should for the good victories against France and Ireland in the following six nations.’
A lie propogated by Barkley, Catt, Shaw and Dallaglio? More significantly, on other comments you have dismissed recent English victories yet here you suggest that Ashton should somehow be acclaimed for victories? That is contradcitory.
‘In Ashton’s final match, Cipriani orchestrated a series of brilliant attacking plays that tore apart the Irish. The forwards were dynamic and mobile. This is the kind of performance a real coach like Ashton could produce, and that Johnson cannot.’
This statement makes no sense. Cipriani played well. How does that reflect upon Ashton? The forwards were dynamic and mobile… They’re the same forwards that Johnson has used: Sheridan, Mears, Vickery, Shaw, Borthwick, Croft, Lipman and Easter, and yet you accuse Johnson of being a poor selector. It is also worth pointing out that Wells was and is the forwards coach.
‘The Barbarians were not very good: Australia put 50 points past them in their sleep the next week. England were truly a joke.’
You mean the Australian first team? What changes were made to the Barbarians side?
‘I can’t see what kind of progress results in losing 4 of the last 6 games. Is that progress?’
It has already been publicly established that you are cherry picking. The best 6N since 2003 is progress. Case closed. Do your homework and go to bed.
kingplaymaker said | November 23rd 2009 @ 5:10am | Report comment
England lost several dire players who shouldn’t have been in the team or should have been retired a long time ago. Vickery is past it now, Easter lumbering and one-dimensional, Armitage hopeless. The injuries strengthened the team.
Losing Mortlock and Barnes, two genuinely good players, massively weakened Australia’s attack otherwise your Martin Johnson England would have been truly obliterated.
There are only so many ways to excuse losses, claiming injuries when the other side has injuries, claiming it’s good to be easily defeated by an Australian side who go on to loose to Scotland two weeks later. Losses, losses, losses. Excuses, excuses, excuses.
Last autumn: South Africa, Australia, New Zealand triumph.
This spring: Wales and Ireland triumph.
This summer: Barbarians and Argentina triumph.
This autumn: Australia and New Zealand triumph.
But it’s all fine as long as you can go on thinking up excuses!
Look at the hard reality: Martin Johnson is a dreadful failure as England manager who loses matches all the time. Deep down both of you must recognise that he is a disaster, but having committed yourself to supporting him you won’t reverse your position and will continue to creatively interpret losses and pummellings in order to excuse him until the 2011 when England are crushed in the World Cup and a new manager is appointed: and then you’ll say ‘he only had three years, he needed more time!’. Be honest with yourselves and do what England fans should do and support the team by demanding his immediate resignation.
Knives Out said | November 23rd 2009 @ 5:13am | Report comment
Lol. Thanks for the profound rugby analysis and the advice on what constitutes sporting patriotism. Johnno should definitely give you a call. ‘The injuries strengthened the team’. Lol. That really is good. I’m going to copy and paste all of the above and whenever I’m feeling a little blue in my heart I’m going to have a read. If Lenny Henry and Jack Dee can make a career out of comedy then you sure can, kingplaymaker (they’re English comedians, btw).
kingplaymaker said | November 23rd 2009 @ 5:16am | Report comment
KO if only the likes of you had nothing to do with English rugby we wouldn’t be in such a horrendous state: poisoning the players before key matches would never have been as devastating as appointing Johnson.
Knives Out said | November 23rd 2009 @ 5:24am | Report comment
You’re embarassing yourself. Stop attempting to be personal. It reflects poorly on you. ‘England have lost twice to an understrength Argentina team this year1′. Lol. You’re ruining the thread. Stop it.
Colin N said | November 23rd 2009 @ 5:28am | Report comment
“Last autumn: South Africa, Australia, New Zealand triumph.
This spring: Wales and Ireland triumph.
This summer: Barbarians and Argentina triumph.
This autumn: Australia and New Zealand triumph.”
Lol, what about all those losses under Ashton, nevermind looking at the woeful performances against the USA etc.
kingplaymaker said | November 23rd 2009 @ 5:33am | Report comment
You can laugh as much as you like about MJ’s 9 losses Colin. Keep on laughing about it.
Knives Out said | November 23rd 2009 @ 5:38am | Report comment
‘Lol, what about all those losses under Ashton, nevermind looking at the woeful performances against the USA etc.’
And Wales… and Tonga… and Samoa…
kingplaymaker said | November 23rd 2009 @ 5:44am | Report comment
LOL 9 losses out of 14 matches under Johnson.
Colin N said | November 23rd 2009 @ 5:53am | Report comment
9 out of 15 actually. If you include the Baabaas results, you have to do the same with Pacific Islanders etc.
Colin N said | November 23rd 2009 @ 5:47am | Report comment
And Ireland… and Scotland…. and South Africa etc etc.
Colin N said | November 23rd 2009 @ 5:59am | Report comment
“Vickery is past it now”
But is England’s best tighthead.
“Easter lumbering and one-dimensional”
But is currently a better eight at Haskell.
“Armitage hopeless”
But a better full-back than either Monye or Cueto.
Whether or not you think they are poor players, they are better than the players that took their place.
Knives Out said | November 23rd 2009 @ 6:09am | Report comment
You’re probably best avoiding an analytical debate with The King, Colin.
I have been impressed with David Wilson this year. His work in the ruck against Australia was exceptional given that he had only played 58 minutes prior to the match, and as soon as he came on yesterday the NZ scrum – which had been dominant – went backwards. It’s a real shame that he was injured and didn’t get three 80 minute games. It was also quite interesting to see Steve Meehan attribute Bath’s poor form to his absence. I have been far less impressed with Hartley, but think that a front row of Sheridan, Thompson and Wilson could be a real threat.
kingplaymaker said | November 23rd 2009 @ 6:31am | Report comment
Colin thanks for the reasoned arguments. I think that Vickery has not been the best tighthead for a couple of years now.
Haskell is faster, better at breaking tackles, and more effective overall than Easter.
Armitage is roughly on a level with Cueto, a low level that is, although Cueto looks the better kicker from hand.
So I don’t agree they are better than the players that took their places.
Colin N said | November 23rd 2009 @ 6:42am | Report comment
“I think that Vickery has not been the best tighthead for a couple of years now.”
Who is then?
Haskell’s faster, but his control at the base of the scrum is woeful and that is a very big part of an eight’s play. On form, when Easter is back, I would go with Haskell at six and Easter at 8.
Easter has better hands and is a more intelligent footballer. Against Argentina though, I was very impressed with Haskell’s work at the breakdown, something that a lot of people in the press didn’t seem to pick up on.
As a Sale fan, I can assure you that Armitage is a better footballer than Cueto. He’s quicker, better under the high ball and is a better defender.
It’s interesting how people criticise or praise people just for their size and muscle. I’ve never seen anyone criticise Cueto’s defence which surprises me. Look at how many tackles he’s missed for Sale and England and it’s quite incredible.
kingplaymaker said | November 23rd 2009 @ 6:47am | Report comment
Frankly Bell is better than Vickery now. Even he may be the best.
Haskell is a far more effective runner and tackler than Easter. The only problem with Haskell is his tendency to give away penalties.
Armitage probably has those advantages over Cueto but is a very inaccurate kicker, and even Cueto is better on the counter-attack. So I think overall they come to the same score.
Bob McGregor said | November 22nd 2009 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
Another great article, Andrew, I agree with most of what you wrote.
Indifferent health over the past 3 weeks has limited my reading and viewing but I thought the Scots were a good chance to knock us off IF we continued to play SELFISH rugby and Giteau had a poor day shooting at goal. Both occurred.
Giteau is NORMALLY a good place kicker on the right hand side of the field but is very suspect on the left hand side. When he placed the ball for the conversion I remarked to my wife he would miss the conversion. Apart from the initial successful penalty goal, he ‘fell off the ball’ on impact at all other attempts, putting a slice on it. Note they all went left. Exacerbating the final attempt – on left hand side – he placed the ball far too close to the try line, thereby enhancing the chargers chances of ‘getting into his line of sight’. As expected he fluffed it – and it was nearly charged down as well. He really is down on confidence at the moment.
Any statistics available on Giteau’s goal kicking from either side of the field?
Another major problem facing the team – and I mean MAJOR. How is it, that once a break is made or the gain line is well and truly breached, we see the attacker REFUSE to look for support in a better position, then hog it and yet again turn possible tries into failure/turnover as well? I counted 4 tries that SHOULD have been scored by OZ while Scotland looked like scoring none and so it proved. How is it, that nearly all our Wallabies have embraced ‘white line fever’ and the attitude – me – me – me – I want to be a star and score the try! Please everyone watch me – watch me. Reminds one of 7 year olds running around the paddock imploring their parents, ‘to watch me’.
It’s time for Deans to lay down the law and jettison those who play and ACT selfishly on the paddock [showboating scoring tries where they possibly get 5 points for the try and a possible 10 for the dive]. This is not what OZ Rugby is about. Everything should be orientated to the team – team – team! Any player not prepared to think that way should be shown the door.
My old club team Gordon [on Sydney’s north shore] was coached by Bob Davidson [retired Wallaby Captain of late 1950’s] – during the early 1960’s. Any ‘non team’ man was dressed down in front of ALL grades and sometimes dropped from First Grade to thirds to make sure it sank in. It’s amazing how quickly the selfish ones refocussed. The odd one walked but was not missed. This approach crystallised player’s mindset and was why Gordon was always a hard side to beat. They played for each other, their coaches, supporters and the Tartan jersey. If beaten you knew you did not go down wondering what if.
Many have questioned the Wallabies performance during the 2009 season. Although the team ledger is not all that flashy, they have been thereabouts in ALL games except the blow out in the final 10 minutes of the 3rd AB Test in Wellington. With any LUCK and better option taking, OZ’s balance sheet could have – and should have – been much better.
Our defence in most games has not been as bad as most think, but key injuries to critical players such as Barnes, Mortlock, Shepherd and Sharpe has taken a lot of options away from our potential game plan. The loss of Vickerman to the ‘college of higher learning’ in England will occur from time to time as players plan for a future after Rugby. He continues to be sorely missed.
But long term injuries do and will continue to occur, so we need to improve player depth as a matter of urgency. Thankfully OZ was awarded the 15th Super Rugby franchise and this may induce some of our overseas players to return but if money was the motivating factor for leaving initially, then perhaps we should nurture our youth preferentially.
Then again, given the greed pursued around the world over the past 5 years – virtually in every discipline and it continues to this day – I cannot have faith that players REALLY want to play and commit to their Country when the lure of the ever diminishing paper fiat is seen to many to be the ultimate lure.
At the risk of boring readers yet again, I have to comment on the refereeing. This Froggy was totally out of his depth and reminded me of Nigel Owen and Kaplan. His scrum penalties/free kicks were a disgrace. Can one recall when the chasers were behind Scots number 10? He stood deep and kicked high balls all day unless kicking for touch. Were any chasers penalised? Of course not! Likewise the breakdown where the Scots defended tenaciously all match – most of the time off their feet with hands all over the ball. Whatever happened to the Law requiring the tackler to RELEASE the tackled player and roll away? To make matters worse the Scots were NEVER behind the last feet of the ruck. In reality that’s not true – I counted one ruck where they were! How can this occur? Further more, I thought the tackled player had the right to place the ball once tackled. Or has that ‘interpretation’ been jettisoned?
These days it appears your chances of success in ALL matches depends on who you draw to officiate on game day – usually to the detriment of the visiting team.
Is it any wonder why so many are becoming so disillusioned with our once great game!
But the optimist in me makes me live in hope that the ‘old farts’ in the IRB will wake up in time and do something about it. However, given the greed of the oligarchies around the world I’m not going to lose much sleep ‘expecting’ it to happen.
When recently asked to get involved in politics [usually that means money] I opined ‘I would not cast my pearls before swine’. Collapse was inevitable and nothing I could do/say in the interim will affect the status quo. People will not listen/and or do something until AFTER the collapse; and then the first bullet is usually reserved for the messenger! My further advice in reply, was to put as much as one could spare in physical gold and silver coins stored in one’s own bank vault [within the banks’ huge vault]. Additionally, lay down some fine reds and await the collapse of the stinking morass without a care in the world. {Not true I have to face major surgery mid December}.
Good luck to you all – that’s what I’ve done over the past year.
Hopefully 2010 and 2011 will treat us all more kindly.
hammer said | November 22nd 2009 @ 4:30pm | Report comment
Seems that all the worlds refs just don’t understand the wallabies – the Aussies were poor yet again – trying to look for positives and talking about what ifs is really just putting glitter on a turd
the merchant of Oz said | November 22nd 2009 @ 4:32pm | Report comment
“How is it, that nearly all our Wallabies have embraced ‘white line fever’ and the attitude – me – me – me – I want to be a star and score the try! Please everyone watch me – watch me”
Well – it works for “Firepower” Giteau – he keeps getting paid handsomely and being selected – why not the other 14?
stillmissit said | November 23rd 2009 @ 8:50am | Report comment
Bob – sounds like this is not going to be fun mate. Good luck to you and I am sure I speak for all the roarers when I say, We look forward to hearing from you in January. The answer to life the universe and everything is to just keep on breathing.
MikeM said | November 22nd 2009 @ 4:13pm | Report comment
Bob, First: take it easy, you don’t want to drop any of those fin reds. Second: dressing down a man in front of all grades insrtead of having a word privately is not decent behaviour. Third: good luck with the surgery.
Glenn Condell said | November 22nd 2009 @ 4:22pm | Report comment
‘But Giteau MUST be rested’
I prefer the word ‘dropped’, or at the very least ‘benched’. Giteau’s clueless efforts are now actually costing us games, and that is before we start talking about goalkicking. He must start from scratch and work his way back in, whether it be at 9,10 or 12 – personally I’d like to see him on the bench to cover all 3. Impact is his only hope now that the poverty of his organisational skills has been exposed at Test level. Even your seat-warming Aust 5/8ths of yore like Pat Howard, Rod Kafer or that helmet-haored bloke whose name eludes me would have provided more direction that that with the platfom provided. Had a fit Steve Larkham played 10 we’d have won in a canter.
There has been plenty of meat in previous games for those of us inclined to blame the refereeing, but not last night. The ref was fair and controlled things pretty well, but the Wallabies and especially Giteau certainly didn’t. I cling to the hope that this excruciating period will sow the sinew required to win the Cup in 2 years, in the same way that Aussie cricketers of Steve Waugh’s vintage sucked up a period of awfulness in their play and used the pain they experienced to create a stock of desire and incentive which they used to good effect for years after.
Still, they had Warne, McGrath and Waugh himself, and the Wallabies, even thru my gold-tinted specs, do not possess even one all-time great player right now. I guess it would be even truer to say that the Scots don’t either, but they matched our desire and shaded us in the cohesion of their teamwork. We are a team of parts that can look great in patches but there are several gaping holes, the most obvious being at lock, but the most damaging from a team point of view is in midfield.
Cattledog said | November 22nd 2009 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
Yeah, you’re probably right. Benched would probably be better. Let Cooper step up to the mark with the kicking, although notwithstanding last night, Giteau has been pretty reliable. I too think the ref had a good game…seemed to let it flow a bit, and I certainly didn’t expect as much running and passing as there was, considering the conditions.
Certainly far from confident about Wales…perhaps it’s Deans opportunity to blood some more. The idea of resting Pocock was a fizzer, but we live and learn.
Dave said | November 22nd 2009 @ 5:07pm | Report comment
I actually thought the wallabies ran the ball more than they had all season, which is a surprise considering the conditions. Poor execution, and wrong option taking was the problem. Many promosing raids wasted.
I have been critical of Deans for most of this season. We can still replace Deans and put up a challenge for the WC. Our playing strength may not be that deep, but we should not be losing to a defiant – but limited Scotland, and do more than draw with an Irish side in its first test.
We are capable of beating NZ and SA ON OUR DAY, which is all that is required for a WC. Its a knockout competition.We have two seaons left to build a team that has a better than average chance of doing just that.
Does anyone see the similarities between this side and the 96 version? The core group of players that we all refer to today with awe (Roff, Tune, Larkham, Horan, Eales etc) were not getting results. Their tactics were wrong, people were playing out of position, and they had no direction or purpose.
A new coach changed that. In 98 when we beat England 76-0, the difference between that side and the previous year was night and day. Same players (essentially – completely new approach to their rugby).
If Deans is not replaced, then his role needs to be reduced. The forwards won enough ball, but our backs are terrible. Bring in Larkham and Rod Kaffer, and pay them whatever they want to make it happen. They were the brains behind the Brumbies and Wallabies backline. Have Larkham work hands on with Cooper, Barnes and the young10’s. Let them learn from him while he is still fit and capable. Combine that with Kafer’s tactical insights and ploys, and we may yet be able to salvage something.
The lineout is the other major problem. There we really do have NO depth… Alas, bring back Vickerman!
sheek said | November 22nd 2009 @ 5:33pm | Report comment
Dave,
History does repeat, but I wouldn’t be using 1996-98 as my example. Greg Smith was a very sick man, terminally ill in fact. Otherwise, he was a very capable coach.
Can we assume the coach is the only, or main problem of the Wallabies?
So we drop Deans – who will be his replacement? Remember, Deans had overwhelmingly the best credentials coming into the job.
Dropping Deans will be a ‘feel-good’ solution – “Look, we’ve sacked the coach. We’re being pro-active. We’re doing something”.
Dropping Deans might be a stop-gap solution, but it won’t solve the long-term problems of Australian rugby.
Deans has poor cattle at his disposal, who even more worryingly, have come into the national team possessing poor skills across a wide range of areas.
This is a problem of Australian rugby, led by the ARU. The pool of professional players to select from is far too small, the result of a far too small junior player participation base. And the players, as they have progressed from juniors to seniors, appear to not have had the quality coaching of their predecessors, from passionate & knowledgeable volunteers.
By all means, sack the coach if it’s going to make you feel better. But his replacement will be faced with the exact same problems tomorrow, next week, next month, next year & into RWC 2011.
Bob McGregor said | November 22nd 2009 @ 5:52pm | Report comment
Sheek.
Couldn’t agree more. We certainly don’t want to degenerate into following the old maxim:
if in danger if if in doubt – rush around in circles and scream and shout.
What does that achieve?
May I suggest ‘nothing constructive’.
Dave said | November 22nd 2009 @ 8:56pm | Report comment
Sheek,
I dont doubt the lack of suitable candidates, nor the small pool of players to choose from. I just dont like how someone like Eddie Jones who had a strong record up until 2005 was sacked after losing our best players to major injuries in that year. There was no talk of ‘lack of cattle’ then, but Deans escapes all criticism due to that reasoning.
I was a supporter of Deans, he was the best guy for the job. In 2008 we looked great until Barnes was injured. 2009 looked like it would be a improvement on some good 2008 performances. It has been abysmal however. Same players with an extra year of development, but they have gone backwards.
It is a young side, but many have played a good number of tests, so that excuse is wearing thin.The majority of that side man for man are outstanding players. Im not saying World 15 across the board- but good players.
I see coaching as the problem – not just in Australia, but worldwide. You can tell that they have been schooled in a certain way, and players are told to play robotic, percentage rugby.
If Deans did go, I’d bring in Alan Jones. Someone entirely outside the system who has not been tainted by current coaching methods. We couldn’t perform any worse as a side, and if we did, we wouldn’t have to hear the endless coach-speak excuses!
In any event, I dont think Deans will go, I am just frustrated that rugby is becoming a joke in this country due to our results and style of play
Tony said | November 23rd 2009 @ 10:38am | Report comment
Well said.
In any field, it is hours of deliberate skills practice (that would include game time) that determines end competency. Practice makes permanent (good or bad). Perfect practice makes perfect. Luke Burgess is a classic case – he only got serious after playing with University – so he has talent, but flawed skills. The flaws often become apparent under pressure. The ARU should invest more in juniors, touch and 7’s, – basically 10 good people spread across administration and skill development in each State could make a real difference. Don’t be precious about it, try and promote a form of touch/7’s hybrid for summer months – basically anything to get the required 10,000 hours in.