Scotland the brave: Australia the complacent

Columnist

By Spiro Zavos, 23 Nov 2009 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert

Tagged:: Grand slam, murrayfield, Rugby Union, Scotland, wallabies

Related coverage

Australia's Peter Hynes, center, is tackled by Scotland's Alex Grove during the International Rugby Union match between Scotland and Australia at Murrayfield Stadium, Edinburgh, Scotland. Saturday, Nov. 21, 2009. (AP Photo/Chris Clark)

Usually I hate the cliche that ‘the team that wants it most will win.’ But, unfortunately, this is the summary that best makes sense of Scotland’s 9 – 8 victory over Australia at Murrayfield.

The Wallabies played complacently, as if they expected that sooner or later the dominant field position and their better skills would be rewarded with an inevitable victory.

Matt Giteau missed kicking 11 points (two relatively easy penalties, a field goal and a conversion). So hesitant, in fact, was Giteau with his kicking in the end that he nearly had his conversion charged down, even though he took it back to the 22m line.

Three tries were bombed by the Wallabies.

A halfback managed to turn Stephen Moore as he turned on his back over Scotland’s try line after being put into a big hole by a lovely delayed pass from Giteau.

Rocky Elsom tried to score from close range by turning on his back. He, too, was smothered with defenders. Quade Cooper tried a fancy, long pass, which spiralled well forward, when a shorter pass to the unmarked Ryan Cross would have done the trick.

What is it with this business of attacking the try line by diving backwards? As a coach of a C-grade school team in New Zealand many, many years ago I used to finish off every practice with the players running to the try line and diving across it to plant the ball. The point is that the technique of scoring a try has to be taught like the all the other skills.

I’d like to see this drill used for the Wallabies. They didn’t seem to have a clue how to get across the line until the end of the Test when after bash-up after bash-up by the Wallaby forwards under Scotland’s posts had failed, the ball was finally moved wider and Giteau put Cross into a gap to score an easy try.

Earlier this year there was some controversy regarding comments by John O’Neill, the CEO of the ARU, that the Wallabies should be paid on results.

At present they get, I believe, $11,000 a Test, win or lose. O’Neill suggested a higher amount for a win and a lower amount for a loss. RUPA, the players’ trade union, complained that the successful Wallabies in the past didn’t need financial incentives and that, anyway, players don’t play for the money.

Well, let’s see. Any number of people have ear-bashed me about how passionless the current Wallabies are in their play. This attitude, I believe, goes back to George Gregan who when accused of being passionless made the case that professional players didn’t have to get worked up or fired up to honour the jersey and perform well.

Tell that to Simon Poidevin or to Stephen Larkham, so sadly missed by this current Wallaby side and in the quarter-final of the 2007 Rugby World Cup at Marseille.

These players, and all the great players of the past, including the wonderful 1984 Grand Slam Wallabies, were never complacent about playing in the Wallaby colours. If blood had to be shed for the cause, it was and that was that.

But on Saturday the Wallabies betrayed this great tradition. There was no fire in the belly, even from someone like Elsom who used to play with the abrasiveness of a fireball.

As I watched the Wallabies complacently going about their business at Murrayfield I kept on thinking of them as the rugby-playing equivalents of those businessmen who continued to give themselves bonuses even though their companies were collapsing around them

Scotland played well, for a team that doesn’t have any standout players.

Ironically, the man of the match for some newspapers was Nathan Hines, who learnt his rugby in the Australian bush. Scotland defended tenaciously even when they were being totally out-played around the field for most of the Test. They played the occasional ball they won through the hands to force crucial penalties from a stretched Wallaby defence. And they kicked the crucial goals, from the penalty spot and from the field, something that Giteau couldn’t do on the day.

Here’s another cliche that generally is hard to cope with but which is true for the complacent Wallabies right now. The team is a ‘work in progress,’ we are told. Well judging from the emails I am getting from irate Wallaby supporters there is not much progress and not much work – on the field, at least.

The great thing about touring is that while the tour is on there is always the chance of redemption. That chance is next week against Wales at the Millennium Stadium. We want a Wallaby side that plays with typical Australian pride and tenacity, a side prepared to do the tough things well to get a victory.

A victory against Wales will create some momentum going into 2010. A defeat creates what was unthinkable a week or so ago – one victory out of four against the Home Unions.

Dr Herbert Moran was the Wallabies first great captain. On the 1908 tour of Britain and Ireland, Moran created the tradition of the Wallaby captain leading from the front, and of a team style that should be, as he put it, ‘vigorous and a little dangerous.’

In the epic Test against Wales which the Wallabies lost but not without a titanic struggle, Moran created a call that should be revived to inspire the current Wallabies: ‘We wanted the ball very badly from the scrum in those last moments. Each time we settled down to push, I would utter one single word “Australia,” and each time those forwards responded magnificently.’

Let’s see the spirit of the 1908 Wallabies at Cardiff in action on Saturday night.

Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.

The Crowd Says (160) | Page 1 of Comments

Knives Out said | November 23rd 2009 @ 5:57am | Report comment

When Australia lose why is it always a question of passion rather than a question of skill, leadership and tactical nous? The Scottish scrum was erratic, the lineout sometimes rushed, the kicking innacurate, and the back three poor footballers. How does a professional player respond to that scenario? The Australia starting side contained, on average, 37.6 caps per man. Why could that side not break down what was a committed but limited Scotland side? The answer cannot simply be a lack of passion.

Reply
- Mr cheese said | November 23rd 2009 @ 7:04am | Report comment
  
  Indeed.
  
  You’re right to say that they lacked passion. I thought that they lacked “clue”.
  
  They didn’t have a scooby doo.
  
  Never having played rugby at any level, I cannot be sure. It seems to me, however, that you get a hatful of points but chucking the ball around. Then you shut up shop and spend the last 20 minutes with a cigar hanging from your lips.
  
  The convicts were not passionless, they were clueless.
  
  The Scottish dude Andy Nicol was right on the BBC commentary with Eddie “The Butler” Butler: when you’re in a 3 on 2 situation, it is plain daft to mess it up. How can you mess it up with a forward pass ?
  
  I think I have an idea: when Jonathan Davies returned to Rugby Union from League, certain players refused to pass to him because of his League past. Perhaps that’s why people don’t always want to throw the ball to Ryan Cross. He got the try, je comprends bien, but they missed other opportunities.
  
  Is that it ?
  
  Reply
  - Knives Out said | November 23rd 2009 @ 7:32am | Report comment
    
    I think so. Where’s the brains trust?
    
    Reply
- stillmissit said | November 23rd 2009 @ 7:11am | Report comment
  
  Knives – don’t tell me you are one of those players who believe that if we hang in their long enough we will win? Passion and commitment are two vital ingredients to a successful team. The only exception to this is if the Wallabies were playing Epping 3rd grade.
  
  Reply
  - Knives Out said | November 23rd 2009 @ 7:30am | Report comment
    
    Passion and committment are vital but then so is technical excellence. For example, SA won the 3N because they were technically excellent at specific parts of the game and also because they were led well. The Wallaby backline seemed unsure of what they were trying to achieve, and when whatever they were trying wasn’t working nobody stepped up and said “Put it in the corner every time, and let’s test their back three.” Mitchell and Hynes made inroads, and Cross, despite his obvious running arc, always made metres. The Scottish pack seemed petrified of Palu, and yet there seemed no organisation to take advantage of the lack of skills in the Scotland side. Australia wasn’t exactly bullied out of the game. I honestly think that Elsom isn’t the man for the job, and despite experience in key positions: Moore, Chisholm, Smith and Giteau, no support seemed forthcoming.
    
    Reply
  - Bay35Pablo said | November 23rd 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
    
    Stillmissit, having trained a couple of times with Epping, I’d back the Ram’s thirsty thirds on the Wallabies current form. And probably back them to off the Scots. More (ex Eastwood) talent in the Rams that Scottish rugby!!!!
    
    Reply
    - stillmissit said | November 23rd 2009 @ 9:35am | Report comment
      
      Bay35Pablo – Epping’s thirsty thirds were a hard team to beat last year. I guess their lineout was superior to the Walabies as they won all of their own ball and there was certainly a fair amount of passion in the has-been’s running around in their pack.
      
      Reply
  - Mr cheese said | November 23rd 2009 @ 9:03am | Report comment
    
    Surely you don’t attribute their defeat to a lack of passion ????
    
    That seems strange to me. How can a ball thrown forward be attributed to a lack of passion ?
    
    Mr Giteau should learn that you’re meant to kick the ball through the sticks.
    
    We are consistently told that the Aussies are better than us at sport in part because of their better weather. Perhaps this was proof. They need the sun rays on their moustaches.
    
    In the SF of the Rugby Union World Cup, England beat France in the driving rain. The French whinged.
    
    As Sir Clive Woodward put it: “I know that it rains in France too, because I go there on my holidays”.
    
    Reply
- BennO said | November 23rd 2009 @ 7:36am | Report comment
  
  Because they have all demonstrated at one time or another that they are a talented, skilled bunch of individuals. But as a team they don’t play with enthusiasm. I’ve noticed it for a long time, they never chase hard when a player makes a break. If you watch the games from the golden years support play is a key feature. It takes passion to play support because you might not get the ball, you might not score the try yet you’re there in case you’re needed. This current side doesn’t do that and it shows a lack of passion.
  
  Also they have shown they can mix it with the big boys, almost beating the all blacks, thumping the boks – I’m changing thumped to comprehensively outplayed. They comprehensively outplayed the boks this year. They have the talent, skill, tactical nous and ability to execute when they are on the job. They can’t do it two or three weeks in a row. That shows a lack of passion in my view.
  
  As for leadership, that’s certainly a part of it and is often discussed in these pages as well. I would say Giteau has to go as he is in a leadership position but doesn’t demonstrate any. Ironically I think a formerly all reds inside backline of Genia, Barnes, Cooper and Ioane would fire without the constraints of Giteau’s belief that he owns the jersey.
  
  But I agree with spiro that overall a lack of passion is what does it. They don’t hurt when they lose. Ever since I saw gregan smiling and joking with the opposition after a tense loss I thought, he cares about it less than I do, how can that be? He’s supposed to care about it more than anyone. I think passion has been lacking for about 5 years now.
  
  end of rant.
  
  Reply
  - Knives Out said | November 23rd 2009 @ 7:53am | Report comment
    
    I would perceive a slow kick-chase as being due to poor organisation rather than a lack of passion, and/or poor kicking, BennO.
    
    Reply
    - BennO said | November 23rd 2009 @ 7:57am | Report comment
      
      I’m not talking about chasing kicks Knives Out, I’m talking about chasing after a player who makes a break. I can remember countless times Giteau making a lovely break only to be caught and have no one following to receive a pass or secure the ball. Result: No try when there should have been. But I would also maintain that a good kick chase is also indicative of a passionate team.
      
      Reply
      - Knives Out said | November 23rd 2009 @ 8:05am | Report comment
        
        Fatigue or poor fitness perhaps? I really don’t buy the passion theory. No rugby player goes out to lose, and Australia was dominant in quite a few aspects of the game. If they really weren’t trying then surely they wouldn’t have done various things well? I’m not Australian so I can’t comment on the Australian context, but as an objective observer what I see is a lack of leadership, no clear tactical game plan and poor skill execution. Why, for example, can Burgess still not throw a rugby ball properly?
        
        Reply
        
        BennO said | November 23rd 2009 @ 8:17am | Report comment
        
        Well I guess everyone interprets what they see differently and that’s fine. But there is a difference between not going out to lose and playing with passion. You just need to watch the state of origin games to see that. There is a level of passion that makes for an incredible game of football. You get unknown players like Adam Mogg called up who play the game of their lives because they play with a passion that is unknown to this wallaby side.
        
        There are no doubt individuals who lack certain skills (as there are in every team) but you just have to look at Smith, Elsom, Horwill, Giteau, Robinson, Hynes, Ashley-Cooper to see that a very good side is lurking in there with generally very skillful players. Maybe leadership is a problem too, I wouldn’t rule that out, but passion is such a wonderful ingredient to a team, it lifts players like nothing else.
        
        Matt0931 said | November 23rd 2009 @ 8:32am | Report comment
        
        I think it’s more to do with respect for the opposition than passion.
        
        Did they train as hard for this test as the Irish or England test? me thinks not.
        
        I think the coaches and the players were already thinking about the welsh well before the scottish game.
        
        stillmissit said | November 23rd 2009 @ 9:20am | Report comment
        
        Knives at last we totally disagree. This is the normal response from a young player who is totally process bound and risk averse.
        
        Had Australia just followed a process then they would not have made the breakthrough at El Alamein in the second world war. The Aussies just fought on when nobody thought they could do it, no logic, limited structure, just plain passion, guts and cussedness.
        
        Your generation has no idea about these great virtues as you have never been exposed to anything that demanded it of you.
        
        Now you can come back with the whimpish answer that this is rugby it aint a war. To me it has always been similar, we go out there to beat an opposition that is tough and committed and wants to win and does not want to lose at the same intensity as we want to.
        
        You can take as many ideas and tactics and statements about poor skill levels you want but in the end it is 15 men fighting 15 men. Take the passion out of it and you can just give the game to Rommel 9-8.
johnno42 said | November 23rd 2009 @ 6:08am | Report comment

yeah tell George Gregan that the reason for the defeat was “the wallabies were short on passion”

Reply
Surferbikerboy said | November 23rd 2009 @ 6:53am | Report comment

Let’s face it people, this is one of our worst Wallabies side, probably the worst in Aurtalian rugby history. They are clueless, lacking the skill level and intelligence required to lift themselves from the mire they find themselves in. Even our top guys have been dragged down to the level of the weakest links in the chain. Is this because they have given up, or just worn down by the mediocrity that surrounds them?

There can be absolutely no doubt though, that these guys lack the passion required to be competitive all the time and this surely must come from the lack of player depth pushing them to continually achieve, and the fact that their pay packets are secure no matter how they perform. Like many Australians, I was left bewildered and totally ashamed (and damn angry) that these guys had the arrogance to demand money for a trial game.

Maybe the issue is these guys are cossetted away too much from the reality of the real world. I can’t help but think that a bit of good old fashioned ‘face your accusers’ (ie, the rugby public) and be made to personally answer some hard questions about their lack of performance might at least wake a few of these guys up.

Reply
kingplaymaker said | November 23rd 2009 @ 7:08am | Report comment

Spiro in a way it’s not suprising that when a team has had its confidence repeatedly crushed by an endless series of losses it is incapable of playing well, motivating itself, and finishing off tries. The current side is like a man who has lost his job, his wife and his house and is finally faced with a mugger in the street bent on robbing him of his last few coins: does he put up a fight or back down and submit?

My own idea is that the team has lost because several key players were removed at the beginning of this season and during the last, and that this began a snowballing succession of losses. The players as a group were not good enough and lost despite having some confidence, which as a result disappeared. So with inadequate players and increasingly less confidence they continued to lose until now, even against a team with an inferior playing group, their confidence is so shot that they cannot muster any performance at all.

When confidence goes because a team’s players are not good enough, the more losses it accumulates the more the confidence goes and the harder it is to get it back. Until some more players are acquired or bought back this will continue to be the case.

Reply
- Surferbikerboy said | November 23rd 2009 @ 7:19am | Report comment
  
  Interesting theory – on the whole I agree with what you say. But, I rejoiced when some of the older guys, especially Nathan Sharpe, were axed because to me they were the ones who were far too accepting of a loss.
  
  Reply
  - kingplaymaker said | November 23rd 2009 @ 7:36am | Report comment
    
    Superbiker I think there’s a difference between a talented older player like Vickerman and Mcmenniman (who’s actually only 25) and an Al Baxter: axing the second older type is good, axing the first less so. The problem is the ARU axed the first.
    
    Reply
kingplaymaker said | November 23rd 2009 @ 7:21am | Report comment

Spiro in fact having said all that, I now realise that an article I wrote has just appeared in which I give my explanation for all this at greater length so if you like you can see it there as it’s a little too long for a comment.

Reply
Kevin,Meath said | November 23rd 2009 @ 7:35am | Report comment

Scotland are not a bad side, they have made themselves very difficult to beat over the last couple of years but have failed to go to the next level score tries and beat teams. Especially at home they defend with massive amounts of pride. If you don’t take chances (21 points) and miss kicks (11 points) then how do you expect to beat any half decent team?
On the negative for Australia you are now going to play a team (Wales) who have been much stronger than Scotland over the last few years and who have a backline full of Lions. You drop 32 points against them then you will have problems.
Steven Jones is playing very well, Jamie Roberts is finding form as is Shane Williams and Martin Williams is at his ‘cheating’ best.
On the plus side Wales have their 4/5th choice tighthead and light, if athletic, locks so their scrum is suspect , although they stood up to the Argentines no mean feat. They are missing a few player (Adam Jones who is showing why tightheads are in such demand) Lee Byrne and Mike Philips , that (in my opinion ) shouldn’t be a big problem with Peel but Gatland seems to prefer Cooper. They also like to play ‘rugby’ that is a more open game, that would be good for Australia and hopefully the rugby fan. As a Welshman in exile I would take a 6-3 win but as a rugby fan I hope it produces a fine game.
Australia play like you did against Scotland then your feked, play like you did against Ireland then its going to be a great game. Will have to figure out how I can sneal off early to watch it.

Reply
- BennO said | November 23rd 2009 @ 7:51am | Report comment
  
  At the start of the tour this was the game I was most looking forward to because I love the way the Welsh play the game (not a long time fan but when Graham Henry took over in the late 90s I took notice and they developed a good deal of belief I think). But now after the Wallabies performances I’m just scared to watch it! We might bounce back and play a great game but I think we’re gonna get touched up by the Welsh.
  
  Reply
  - Kevin,Meath said | November 23rd 2009 @ 8:10am | Report comment
    
    As a completely biased Welshmen hope so! but I suspect the ‘Aussie’s will bounce back. Wales want to run the ball as do Australia, Wales (esp the scrum) are not that strong up front , although Charteris ( who by the way is English or I should say Cornish and prefers to play for Wales) is doing well in the lineout. So i expect Australia to do well up front, theres not much difference between Wales and Ireland. Has all the marks for a good game of rugby, pity I don’t finish my college course until 5 on saturdays, will have to find a relative who is ill.
    
    Reply
    - Kevin,Meath said | November 23rd 2009 @ 8:12am | Report comment
      
      just edited comment so correction no longer required. But what are the chances of a NH clean sweep on staurday?
      
      Reply
    - BennO said | November 23rd 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment
      
      Well let’s hope it’s a good one. As you say, it’s sure to be entertaining rugby whoever wins.
      
      Reply
The Link said | November 23rd 2009 @ 7:52am | Report comment

An Australian Rugby Football side that cannot attack, is well, un-Australian. No imagination. Like watching 15 robots camped in the opposition 22.

Reply
Nick the Rooster said | November 23rd 2009 @ 8:00am | Report comment

Let me start by saying that I’m a proud Australian and always will be. However, it gives me a warm feeling inside watching the Wallabies get bashed and beaten.

I have never been a rugby fan and therefore never really cared about the Wallabies. It wasn’t until the night I stayed up to watch them be humiliated by the English during the last World Cup that I began to despise them. That nght, they weren’t just beaten. That night they taught a lesson in passion, toughness and pride. All the things you would normally take for granted with Australian national teams. I was embarrassed to call myself an Australian after that performance.

The Wallabies are proving what is wrong with rugby in this country. The non-existant local competition and the reliance on pompous private school boys coming through the grades is creating a soft underbelly that is being exposed by tougher opposition. Skill and speed might get the Wallabies a few wins here and ther but as soon as they come up against the likes of the Springboks or All Blacks, they’re made to look soft. Even the All Blacks themselves commented on how soft the Wallabies were during this years Tri Nations. That’s right……. soft!

And now the Scots have done it. They came out and played with a bit of pride and passion and have shown up a Wallaby outfit who should have been far more superior. The Wallabies have again embarrassed Australia on the world stage.

All I can say is thank God for the Kangaroos and rugby league. Although they may slip everyone now and again and lose the odd match, only to the Kiwis, they always represent Australia with pride. They would never be beaten by another team through lack of toughness, passion or pride.

Reply
- BennO said | November 23rd 2009 @ 8:08am | Report comment
  
  You’re not from around these parts are you pal?
  
  Reply
  - Nick the Rooster said | November 23rd 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
    
    I am very much from around here mate. Born and bred in Sydney. This is why I am so disgutsed by the Wallabies.
    
    Reply
    - BennO said | November 23rd 2009 @ 11:46am | Report comment
      
      Relax mate it was supposed to be a light-hearted dig…declaring a love for league on a rugby thread made me think of an old western where the villain rides slowly into town.
      
      Also the points you raise are regularly thrashed out on these pages (particularly weak third tier competitions), so it seems you haven’t been following them.
      
      Reply
      - Nick the Rooster said | November 23rd 2009 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
        
        Sorry BennO – I get all excited whenever I get the chance to give it to the Wallabies.
        
        Reply
        
        BennO said | November 23rd 2009 @ 3:22pm | Report comment
        
        No wuckers, you must have had a fair few chances recently!
- Mr cheese said | November 23rd 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
  
  Nick,
  
  isn’t the problem that the “Wallabies” have accomplished more on the world stage than the “Kangaroos” because of the difference between the two sports i.e. Union is bigger ???
  
  I watch both League and Union.
  
  Over here ( Inglaterra ), John Eales and Campese would be much better known than Mal Meninga or Andrew Johns.
  
  John Eales is very highly regarded. Sadly, Mal Meninga isn’t because his sport is not very big.
  
  John Eales projected a very very positive image of Australian sport and of Australia.
  
  Sadly, no RL player could ever do that. You shouldn’t be so quick to throw stones at Union.
  
  Reply
  - Bruce Ross said | November 23rd 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
    
    “the reliance on pompous private school boys coming through the grades”. The current malaise in Australian rugby has much to do with the current tendency for school boys, whether “pompous private” or not, not “coming through the grades” where they would learn their craft over several years, but instead being immediately rushed into professional football with a very limited skill and knowledge set.
    
    Reply
    - Mick Gold Coast QLD said | November 23rd 2009 @ 11:26am | Report comment
      
      In this context I am reminded of Matt Burke’s considerable period as apprentice to Marty Roebuck at the Mighty Eastwood – I recall him getting one of his early representative opportunities only after Roebuck busted his leg, and the public interchange between the two one Saturday up at Milner as the master handed over the responsibility in the knowledge the kid had been well groomed.
      
      Reply
      - Justin said | November 23rd 2009 @ 11:35am | Report comment
        
        I thought Burke started out as a centre? I know his first few maw matches were at 13 with Scotty Bowen supplying greats balls from 10.
        
        Reply
        
        Mick Gold Coast QLD said | November 23rd 2009 @ 3:45pm | Report comment
        
        Don’t recall what he started out as, Justin.
        
        He was merely one of the young ones at family BBQs with my son and his mates – quiet, personable, confident.
        
        I do recall he played wing, centre and full back at the Woodies and that he had a good grounding in Club rugby before and during his progression upwards. I also cannot recall the full Woodies complement at that time – there may have been a couple of others who played full back from time to time, even while Roebuck and Burke were there. We were blessed with many good backs.
        
        Conversely I saw a young Brisbane kid play full back (poorly) for the Wallabies over in Wellington and then again the other night, as a late replacement, who I doubt has ever seen a Club dressing shed. If he has it has not been many times at all.
  - Nick the Rooster said | November 23rd 2009 @ 10:11am | Report comment
    
    Mr Cheese…………..The fact that rugby is played in more countries doesn’t make it a better sport. The only reason that it is played in more countries is because it spread with the British empire all those years ago and was made part of the sporting curriculum in the private schools founded by the settlers. The same way that cricket spread to India and the West Indies etc.
    
    You keep reffering to the Wallabies being better known in Europe, which has nothing to do with what I said. The fact they are well known makes it worse for us given they are so pathetic.
    
    Being well known doesn’t make you great or mean your talented. It just means that the sport you play has more of a media focus onj it and more money pumped into it on the world stage. Does the fact that Gary Ablett, Tony Lockett and Chris Judd aren’t house-hold names overseas make them lesser athletes over here? And you refer to Mal Meninga and Andrew Johns and compare them to John Eales and David Campese? Are you kidding? Mal and Joey would wipe the floor with either of them. And don’t forget that Australian Rugby hired Andrew Johns to teach them how to kick.
    
    Thanks for the advice, but I’ll keep throwing stones at the Wallabies as they’re a joke!
    
    Reply
    - Mr cheese said | November 23rd 2009 @ 11:26am | Report comment
      
      Nick,
      
      I like RL so don’t start the RL v RU debate with me.
      
      John Eales is a giant of Aussie sport. As an Englishman, I can say that with respect and probably jealousy.
      
      Meninga was terrific but John Eales was fantastic too.
      
      Anyways, France was never part of the British Empire. They have RU.
      
      I continue to believe that John Eales gave a great image of Australia. Much better than Meninga or Andrew Johns.
      
      Reply
      - Dan said | November 23rd 2009 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
        
        John Eales was a true ambassador for the country and the game, but in terms of sheer skill there’s few people who have as much skill and control as Andrew Johns… I still remember him coming back to play state of Origin after 18 months off the field through injury and him calmly setting up half the blues tries with pin-point passes under pressure and then kicking three perfect conversions from the sideline. That man had a level of on field class that the over-paid Matt Giteau can only dream of.
        
        Reply
        
        Nick the Rooster said | November 23rd 2009 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
        
        Well said Dan!
      - Nick the Rooster said | November 23rd 2009 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
        
        Mr Cheese – why do you keep refering to John Eales and Mal Meninga? How old are you?
        
        I agree John Eales is a gentleman, a good role model and a great ambassador for Australian sport. But I’m talking about the current crop of Wallabies and how pathetic they are. If you go back and read my first comment, you’ll see that I said I lost all respect for the Wallabies after they lost to England in the last World Cup in 2007. John Eales didn’t even play then!
        
        And, I realise that France were never part of the British Empire. What I meant was that England’s influence throughout the world all those years ago was the reason for the spread of rugby. Argentina, to my knowledge, was never part of the Empire either but it was through English schools based in Argentina that rugby spread there.
        
        Reply
      - NickF said | November 23rd 2009 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
        
        Nick the Chicken, I grew up following rugby league whilst playing union. I am a season ticket holder for the Dragons and have been a season ticket holder for the Waratahs few quite a few season but discontinued as I felt the Waratahs administration didn’t treat their fans very well.
        
        Did you know that this year the Roosters had more players arrested than win games? I don’t need to tell you about some of the other atrocious behaviour by other players. Then theirs the great Andrew Johns, lets mention his drug taking, and not just in Australia, but overseas as well.
        
        Were they making Australians look good?
        
        While we are there what about Anthony Watmough, assaulting a sponsor (Kangaroo) and Paul Gallen, racial vilification, picking at another players stitches in a tackle, sorry his is just too many to mention (Kangaroo), are these great ambassadors of Australia.
        
        As for your attempt to denigrate Eales and Campese. Both have done more for Australia, Australian sport and Rugby than Meninga and Johns, both of which were great players.
        
        Take of your small world “NRL-only” blinkers. And give up on your “what league has done for rugby union” argument, and remember such names as Wally Lewis, Ricky Stuart, Ray Price, John Brass, Rex Mossop, Dally Messenger etc. and see that both codes influence each other.
        
        Reply
        
        Nick the Rooster said | November 23rd 2009 @ 2:38pm | Report comment
        
        NickF………. another pointless rant which has nothing to do with my original comment.
        
        And when did I say anything about league doing anything for union? What arguement are you talking about?
        
        As far as my NRL blinkers go, I’m afraid you’re way off. I watch AFL and the A-League as well as the NRL. If only there were a decent rugby comp to watch I may consider it. The ARC was such a huge success. And before you start with the Super 14, don’t bother. The fact is that the only country that still wants the Super 14 is Australia. The local SA and NZ comps are quite strong and they don’t need the Super 14 to improve their players. On the other hand, rugby would die in this country if it wasn’t for the Super 14 due to the joke that is club rugby.
        
        At the end of the day, my beef is with the Wallabies. While I admit that rugby is as boring as watching paint dry, I don’t mind the odd NZ club match as they’re fairly entertaining. The Wallabies are a joke, pure and simple.
        
        And you talk about player behaviour. The only reason league players keep being dragged through the media is because it sells papers. You don’t hear about rugby players getting in trouble because nobody cares!
        
        As far as making Australia look good, I believe holding up trophies and shields in an Aussie jumper makes Australia look very good. Something Andrew Johns, Brad Fitler and Darren Lockyer have all done in the recent past, which is more than I can say for any Wallaby player.
        
        And I’ll finish by saying that you don’t seem to bright. You’ve spent money on Waratahs and Dragons season tickets. Enough said.
        
        NickF said | November 23rd 2009 @ 3:55pm | Report comment
        
        Rooster man, quote-
        “And don’t forget that Australian Rugby hired Andrew Johns to teach them how to kick.”.
- Justin said | November 23rd 2009 @ 9:19am | Report comment
  
  Funny thing is they were far superior they just couldn’t ground the ball or kick goals!!!
  
  Reply
- Timmypig said | November 25th 2009 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
  
  Nick thanks for your contributions. Now pack up your 1890s-style class hatred and disappear from the Roar’s rugby threads please champ.
  
  Oh, and BTW:
  
  “…they always represent Australia with pride. They would never be beaten by another team through lack of toughness, passion or pride.”
  
  Have you forgotten how your brave, tough, manly, magnificent Kangaroos were too scared to tour Lancashire in late 2001 because they feared becoming Al Qaeda targets?
  
  Reply
fox said | November 23rd 2009 @ 8:15am | Report comment

Ironic it is rooster then that a bunch of private school boys’s underbellies were exposed by another group of private (or as they call it there, public) schoolboys. In Scotland rugby is the game of the upper classes – and more so than here even.

You are right to feel embarrassed though. But it’s alright, immense glory is just around the corner – or so I keep being informed! It is, I keep reminding myself, simply a matter of time before these lads hold onto passes and some key players stay on the park (or indeed the tour) for 80 minutes – and we have a better organiser in midfield than Gits.

The only thing that is obvious to me in all this is that the Wallabies don’t have a world class goal kicker and because of that, it is absolute crucial that all chances at 5 pointers be taken. Other southern hemisphere teams on tour have gotten away with playing below their abilities due to converting those vital 3 pointers. Unfortunately we have no such safety net.

The Wallabies are still some way to being successful but I will keep the faith. There is still much to be positive about. However, it cannot be underestimated just how vitally important this weekend’s match against Wales is!

Reply
Knives Out said | November 23rd 2009 @ 8:24am | Report comment

I just think that passion is too easy a response to fall back on, and in my experience it is primarily an Australian response. For me, passion is something that carries you through one off games, like the 2007 QF between Australia and England. Australia would probably have won that game 99 times out of 100, BennO. Therefore I also believe that passion is a necessity when things aren’t going to plan, but that ultimately the most significant aspect is the broader picture. For example: tactical flexibility on the field of play and leadership. These two things also dig you out of holes. This Australian side has been playing under Deans for two years and is yet to establish a consistent style of play. What sort of rugby is the team trying to play? I honestly can’t tell. Do the players even know?

Reply
- BennO said | November 23rd 2009 @ 8:50am | Report comment
  
  Crikey you’re jumping around the page now, I can’t follow!
  
  I agree with what you say about the type of rugby. I’ve seen Horan and maybe Kearns talk about how they can see it and they think the players do too, but I don’t see too much. Although having said that I missed the last two games. I think Spiro’s summation isn’t bad though (kick when necessary but run when you can) but if that’s the plan I don’t think they have got it yet.
  
  But regarding passion it’s true it’s an easy fallback because it’s so obvious. But the wallabies do look like they’re just going through the motions. They have done for some time now, perhaps since Eddie Jones. THey play with, let’s call it passion and enthusiasm when the media gets on their backs a bit and they execute well and play with tactical nous and all that (Boks game this year as exhibit A) but that only comes when everyone is having a go at them. THey need that passion every week, I don’t think it’s a one off thing. They are representing their country for crying out loud. There’s no greater honour.
  
  As for being a uniquely Australian response, I think that’s got two sources, one is state of origin in a sporting context. That has elevated passion in this country to a mythical thing. The passsion QLD displayed from the start and to this day is legendary. It’s genuine and it’s on display every year. Until recently bookies had them losing just about every series, yet over almost 30 years it’s 50-50. They grow legs in the QLD jersey. The other source is of it is historical, the national pride that comes from proving ourselves to the world. We don’t take too many things seriously in Oz, but as you know sport is one of those things. We demonstrate to ourselves that we are free from the Old Dart by beating them in sport. We should be a minnow in most sports, yet we consistently punch above our weight. Because we want to prove to the world (and probably ourselves), through sporting success, that we are important in the world. Or something like that anyway.
  
  Basically it comes down to wanting to beat the Poms at everything and that took a lot of passion in the very early years because we didn’t necessarily have the skills or the technique. We had a shared passion borne out of a hatred of the English always being on top. That’s lingered in most teams and in the minds of most fans.
  
  That’s what I reckon anyway.
  
  Reply
  - Knives Out said | November 23rd 2009 @ 8:55am | Report comment
    
    There wasn’t a reply option below your last post.
    
    That’s an interesting response. We’ll just have to agree to disagree, BennO. I see passion as short-term, something that aids and elevates a tactical framework and accurate skill set.
    
    Reply
    - BennO said | November 23rd 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
      
      Fair enough. Though I agree with you about what passion can do. I think our only disagreement is that I think the national side should have that burning in them every game.
      
      Reply
      - Knives Out said | November 23rd 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
        
        I agree that passion should be a given but Australia lost because of technical issues: poor goal kicking and a forward pass. It is a very broad debate, I suppose.
        
        Reply
        
        BennO said | November 23rd 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
        
        It’ just circular I think because you’re quite right, that’s why we lost but I’d say that if this team played with more passion they’d have executed better!
- Ben C said | November 23rd 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
  
  I have to agree with KO
  
  The end of the Wellington test displayed a lack of passion.
  
  The loss ot Scotland was down to:
  
  (a) lack of ability in the lineout
  
  (b) lack of any sort of tactical leadership in the backline
  
  The first seems to be the cattle. Chisholm has always been a journeyman and Horwill is a Botha/Thorn workhorse (who has lost his spark) and not a Matfield/Vickerman lineout general
  
  The second, I am not so sure about. Is it lack of tactical awareness at 10? Everyone seems to agree Giteau does not seem to have the vision for an international fly-half. Is it coaching? There does not seem to be any plan to the backline. Deans talks about kicking but the kicking is woeful. Some of the selections are baffling on occasion. I suspect it is a bit of both. Perhaps they need to ditch Richard Graham and look for a better backline/skills coach.
  
  Reply
- Daniel J said | November 23rd 2009 @ 3:00pm | Report comment
  
  KO – Passion is essential, it is the driving motivator that will win a tight contest, it affects moral and in turn will affect the attitude of the team. All of these ingredients are without a doubt profoundly missing in this current wallabies side and don’t think that it can be rubbished… I know what you are saying that it is easy to do that, but in all honesty, do you think if the wallabies had beat Ireland that they would have lost against Scotland? i know it’s a hypothetical but you could almost sense that once the grand slam was off th cards the team might have given up….. just a thought
  
  Has anyone else noticed the complete lack of composure Drew Mitchell shows after he scores? it’s embarrassing.
  
  Reply