By kingplaymaker -
November 23rd 2009 @ 7:14am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
The Australian rugby apocalypse
What can explain the cataclysmic loss to Scotland this weekend? How could a team which last year looked in better shape to challenge for the World Cup than anyone else be reduced to a stumbling wreck, lacking direction, quality and the faintest glimmer of confidence?
With strange results the causes are strange and complex, and this is naturally case here.
It starts with the man at the top.
John O’Neill decided on the basis of some positive results last year, that it would be safe to lose a player or two in the interests of cost-cutting and marking his position of strength on the players, as the national resources were good enough to maintain the team’s competitiveness.
He therefore allowed Dan Vickerman to feel undervalued and leave, refused to assist the NSW Waratahs in the recruitment of Karmichael Hunt, fired Lote Tuqiri, allowed the Waratahs to bench Timana Tahu while paying him a huge salary and thus frustrating him into abandoning the sport, and was unwilling to pay Hugh Mcmenniman a little more in order to prevent him moving to Japan.
O’Neill’s calculation was the following: it’s highly important to show players that we will not allow them to make excessive financial demands (Vickerman, Hunt, Mcmenniman), or to behave badly in a way disrespectful to ARU authority. The playing resources of Australia are strong enough for the Wallabies to be competitive even if we lose a few players.
That explains O’Neill’s part, but why did Robbie Deans go along with this? Why didn’t he protest at the cavalier disregard of precious high quality players?
The answer is that Robbie Deans is a New Zealander, an ex-All Black whose last international coaching job was with the All Blacks. Blessed with an incomparable supply of talent, the All Blacks can simply lose a few players here and there and still trump the opposition.
Deans seems not to have realised yet that Australia does not contain the same abundant riches. As a result of this, the All Blacks are able to demand iron discipline and take an authoritarian stance towards their players, as if one or two leave there are several equally good possibilities to take their place.
This perhaps explains Deans own authoritarian streak, his cheerful collusion in Tuqiri’s sacking and philosophical indifference to Tahu’s departure. He comes from an environment where the playing weaponery is unlimited and the mindset that of a conquering army: the thinly supplied guerrilla mentality of the Wallabies is something he has yet to adapt to.
To add to the loss of quality in the side, the firing of Tuqiri devastated the team’s harmony and buzzing attitude.
So the Tri-nations began and the Wallabies, lacking all the energy and positive freshness of the year before because one of their senior player had just been summarily fired, slipped to a series of heavy losses.
Performances were still committed but lacked energy and in the end nothing could hide the fundamental inferiority of the playing group to their opponents. O’Neill’s five squandered players were absent where they were most needed, and the slide began to take speed.
With continued losses confidence began to fall away as well as energy, and to top it all, key players such as Stirling Mortlock began to get injured. Although towards the end of the Tri-nations a growth in confidence began to emerge, it was not enough and the repeated battering from the media and even the coach began to wear on the team’s ruined sense of its own value.
Without Tuqiri, Vickerman, Mcmenniman and Tahu the Wallabies are just too short of real talent.
Now the culmination of this descent has been reached. The Wallabies confidence is crushed. For whole epochs in rugby terms they camped on the English and Scottish lines, failing to score due to nothing more than a terror of failure.
Lote Tuqiri stands on the sidelines as a TV pundit watching Drew Mitchell and Peter Hynes, two wings of vastly inferior talent, taken down quickly by feeble Scottish counterparts whenever they touch the ball.
Ryan Cross with endless possession makes minor inroads where Timana Tahu would have wreaked havoc.
Dan Vickerman and Hugh Mcmenniman’s absence leave the Wallabies packs unable to out muscle a second-rate if large Scottish outfit as well as incapable of line-out dominance.
The worst thing however is that after a series of disastrous losses and scything internal disruption, the team as a whole has lost all bluster, inner strength and self-belief.
O’Neill’s terrible plot has run its course and the Wallabies sink to the most dreadful loss conceivable.
What next? How can Australia possibly recover from this?
The only answer is the following: players, players, players. Get the old ones back, get in new ones.
Watching Tuqiri on the sidelines couldn’t help prompt the following thought: is it possible to imagine the Wallabies losing to Scotland with him on the field?
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...
(43)
Knives Out said | November 23rd 2009 @ 7:20am | Report comment
‘Lote Tuqiri stands on the sidelines as a TV pundit watching Drew Mitchell and Peter Hynes, two wings of vastly inferior talent, taken down quickly by feeble Scottish counterparts whenever they touch the ball.’
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.
stillmissit said | November 23rd 2009 @ 7:31am | Report comment
Knives I am with you again (this is getting boring). Give me a Hynes over a Tuquiri any day.
Knives Out said | November 23rd 2009 @ 7:35am | Report comment
I think that to call Hynes reliable would be to do him a disservice because the term reliability has negative connotations in the rugby context, as if that player is incapable of excellence. He’s accurate, intelligent and can finish. I noticed during the Twickenham game that he’s a tough man as well. I’d like to see him playing in a back three with a Tuqiri-esque player. A big man who he could link with.
Dan said | November 23rd 2009 @ 5:28pm | Report comment
You’re certainly right that to denigrate Hynes is to illustrate that one has simply not watched him play, but Tuqiri’s value was certainly underestimated by the ARU in my opinion. He fell out of favour with many wallabies fans, but the man was an extremely passionate and fierce competitor that was very strong under the high ball (a skill we need in the current ping-pong Rugby environment of constant up and unders) and tackled with incredible ferocity. He always had the potential to make a devastating outside centre, but was simply never given ample time in the role.
formeropenside said | November 23rd 2009 @ 7:52am | Report comment
Really, the ARU cannot be serious anymore. Letting go the players mentioned above, not to mention Latham and Rodney Blake, further diluting Australian rugby by creating a 5th team, scrapping the ARC.
Are the ARU so hard up that they agreed to play a 4th Bledisloe every year (and thereby ensure the AB’s retain the trophy indefinately, as a 3-1 series win is required by the Wallabies to win it back – which I agree is purely a hypothetical anyway) but they still cant spend money where it is actually needed?
Heck, at least if Alan Jones had been coaching the Wallabies the last few years with these results he could have been axed and Deans appointed, still with a sterling S14 record. Who do the ARU appoint as the coach now? Its bad enough they recommend to Qld to hire ex-Tah Link over Connolly, so its unlikely Connolly would be a choice. Is Macqueen interested in coming back? Rugby has moved on though, largely to counter the changes Macqueen introduced.
Rugby in Queensland and Australia is *expletive deleted*.
kingplaymaker said | November 23rd 2009 @ 8:06am | Report comment
formeropenside one point I didn’t make fully was the climate in which O’Neill set off on his cost-cutting venture. With the losses the ARU had suffered financially in the years before, the global financial crisis, and the delicate state of the game’s popularity, O’Neill felt it necessary to save money at any price. In addition he thought that by showing the players who was boss and refusing to pay any of them a little more, he would keep salaries low and affordable.
What he didn’t bank on was how small that group of top level players really is.
So it was a gamble, and a miscalculated one.
Bay35Pablo said | November 23rd 2009 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
“This perhaps explains Deans own authoritarian streak, his cheerful collusion in Tuqiri’s sacking and philosophical indifference to Tahu’s departure.”
Making these comments based on personal experience KPM?
Or is this the same source of rumours as the one about why Tuqiri got the sack?
Simple answers solve nothing. it is a hell of a lot more complex, and harder to fix, than you suggest. Although depth is an issue.
kingplaymaker said | November 23rd 2009 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
Bay collusion was perhaps an excessively suggestive word: what I meant was that Deans said he agreed with the dismissal of Tuqiri. This implies he didn’t fight it, and indeed as it (whatever ‘it’ was) took place in a hotel where he must have been the boss of the group, he would have been able simply not to report it to the ARU if he didn’t think it merited severe action, which he must have known would eventuate. So I think he was a part of it.
When Tahu left Deans said he thought it was ok if he wasn’t happy with rugby, which although very generous as a sentiment, suggests he didn’t try as hard as he could to persuade him to stay.
My analysis is in the end rather simple and perhaps too much so: the Wallabies declined because they lost 5 top international players leaving them too weak. Bring in 5 more top international players and they’ll recover.
PastHisBest said | November 23rd 2009 @ 2:44pm | Report comment
“This implies he didn’t fight it, and indeed as it (whatever ‘it’ was) took place in a hotel where he must have been the boss of the group, he would have been able simply not to report it to the ARU if he didn’t think it merited severe action, which he must have known would eventuate. So I think he was a part of it.”
“When Tahu left Deans said he thought it was ok if he wasn’t happy with rugby, which although very generous as a sentiment, suggests he didn’t try as hard as he could to persuade him to stay.”
Exceedingly long bows KPM. Unless as Bay suggest you have the inside juice? If not, then I don;t know how you come up with this kind of thing.
Campbell Watts said | November 23rd 2009 @ 6:11pm | Report comment
Oh please kingplaymaker!
What – you think Tuqiri was worth Deans withholding information from the ARU board?? PLEASE!!
Tuqiri was one of the bad apples that has helped put aussie rugby in the pathetic postion it is now in.
His money-orientated bargining, team-mate pushing, I’m-too-good-to-work-on-my-speed attitude was never any good for the wallabies.
All he did was put bums on seats. His attitude was always “me before the team”, “it’s not me fucking up-it’s my team-mates”, I deserved to be treated like a king!
Looking at your moniker sounds like you may have some of Tuqiri’s delusions yourself!!
stuff happens said | November 23rd 2009 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
I suspect O’Neill has a lot to do with all this. I’ve read a number of reports in the Sydney press about his authoritarian attitude and that many players can’t stand him. The way he handled the Tuqiri saga was appalling and produced no benefit for rugby at all. I notice that Wendell Sailor is to be made some sort of ambassador for League – good move , people love him. This is what should have happened to Tuqiri at the end of his career.
But oh no, let’s sack him and show them who’s boss.And what happens ; the players are seriously pissed which affects performance( what a surprise).
Robbie Deans is not a miracle worker; he has a lack of talent in the pack and a seeming inability to make the right decisions re the backs. That plus the instability in the ranks makes life very difficult. The team starts losing , confidence falls and so it goes on…
kingplaymaker said | November 23rd 2009 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
stuff happens that’s spot-on. How did O’Neill manage to alienate Mat Rogers, Wendell Sailor and Lote Tuqiri? They can’t all be such difficult characters.
If all this had happened in New Zealand they would probably have got away with it. For example, when Luke Mcalister and Aaron Mauger left there were Ma’a Nonu, Conrad Smith and Richard Kahui (and others) waiting in the wings. Internal problems and firing players could never destroy such a world-class arsenal of talent as the All Blacks. There are just too many good players.
But in Australia good union players are as rare and valuable as gold.
Tuqiri was a shining success story as a league convert despite his recent loss of form. He won 67 caps and might have got 100, he was a world-class wing for several years and a great global figure in the sport. And then they fire him? If the reason suggested in the Daily Telegraph is true then it’s really too much for words: who cares if he does that?
Deans is a great coach but so are the New Zealand and South African coaching teams and they have better players thanks to O’Neill. As you say Deans isn’t a miracle worker and with inferior players, internal disruption, loss of confidence, what could any coach in history do in his place?
What’s particularly sad now is seeing how he has turned a player like Wycliff Palu, who was once an occasional performer going missing and getting tired in big matches ,into a relentless, dominating number 8. Who’s to say he couldn’t have done the same with Hugh Mcmeniman, Timana Tahu and Tuqiri?
AngryAnt said | November 23rd 2009 @ 2:52pm | Report comment
KPM,
While I agree there has been some poor decisions made re player retention by the ARU, and that the sacking of Tiquri I believe has created more tension and problems between the players (read Gits in particular) and management (including Deans) than it resolved financially, I cannot let you get away with the following:
He (JON)”…allowed the Waratahs to bench Timana Tahu while paying him a huge salary and thus frustrating him into abandoning the sport”
I strongly suggest JON wanted Tahu playing for the Tahs this year. He wanted anything that might encourage some people to watch rugby, and the Tahs this year did not give many reason to stump up for a ticket.
It is wrong to suggest that the CEO of the ARU actually has the ability to tell a S14/Provincial Coach which players to pick once contracted (I conceed the ARU gives contractual top ups to players, but they had done this with Tahu and money was not why Tahu went back to league. He went back because he did not master the game well enough or wasn’t given the opportunities to show that he had). It just does not happen. As a Tahs fan, and one who enjoys watching decent rugby I wish at time JON had been picking the side rather than Hickey and co. At least JON appreciates the need to put on a show that excites and interests people.
kingplaymaker said | November 24th 2009 @ 12:08am | Report comment
Angryant I think the ARU should insist that when they top-up contracts with vast sums as in the case of Tahu that the players is played. They effectively paid the Waratahs a fortune this year to leave him on the bench. O’Neill certainly didn’t stand in the way when Tahu wanted to leave however.
sheek said | November 23rd 2009 @ 5:02pm | Report comment
It’s finally dawning on people that Australian rugby is in serious trouble. Those who accused others of “death-riding” Australian rugby only just recently, are ranting along with the rest of us.
However, while we go about our ’scorched-earth’ policy of finding the reasons for our demises & possible cures, let’s try to stay away from the quacks, or become quacks ourselves.
3 pieces of advise:
1. In finding solutions, let’s not throw the ‘baby out with the bath water’.
2. When suggesting solutions, try to avoid being engulfed into the world of pure fantasy & unreality.
3. Knee-jerk, short-term, feel-good solutions don’t provide long-term answers.
Personally, I don’t know anymore (the answers), & right now I don’t really care either.
Pete said | November 23rd 2009 @ 5:49pm | Report comment
KPM you’re not part of RUPA by any chance? You’ve drawn some long bows to try and pin this on JON. I don’t agree with some of JONs decisions, but even in my wildest dreams I couldn’t blame him for the loss to Scotland.
Campbell Watts said | November 23rd 2009 @ 6:20pm | Report comment
Here here Pete!
kingplayermaker is streching credulity here with this article!
Tuqiri was washed up.
Mat Rodgers heart was never as big as his ego
Tahu came for the money when the body was waning
Look more to the Wallabies lack of passion, their surplus of greed and their holier-than-thou attitudes to explain the sad form of the wallabies at the moment.
Deans should be getting around in the old t-shirt saying:
“it’s hard to soar with the eagles when I’m surrounded by turkeys!”
kingplaymaker said | November 24th 2009 @ 12:15am | Report comment
Campbell I think the Wallabies have played with huge passion and determination this year, but it’s hard to win if your players aren’t good enough, which they aren’t as I explain above.
If there had been any fault in passion it could be because a player who had been there for several years was fired four games into the season.
Campbell Watts said | November 24th 2009 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
KPM
So the capitulation in Wellington showed “huge passion and determination” did it?
Yes they’re now missing Sharpy, Mortlock, Barnes – some very experienced players, but I will not accept that the league players you are flogging on about were the solution to the present problems!
Tahu wasn’t getting played because his Tah’s coach didn’t think he was as good as the guys getting the 12 and 13 jerseys – simple as that. His chances to shine when he got a spot he blew generally. He never adjusted to the game and his mental ticker dropped because of it.
Tuqiri’s form had slumped so low he wasn’t worth the money they were being forced to pay him – so good on JON for getting rid of him – think of all the extra cash the ARU now have to secure the new emerging talent, not some 30-something old war horse with an attitude problem.
Bringing in league players is not the solution! Even as a stop-gap measure! It’s cutting your nose off to spite your face.
kingplaymaker said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
Campbell yes I do think they played with passion which is why they were able to compete at all for so long with a New Zealand outfit boasting far superior players. By the end their confidence and hope were finished, their bodies exhausted, and so they collapsed.
You can’t really call Tuqiri a league player: he’s been playing union for 6 years and has 67 caps by now! I think his form was a temporary loss and would have returned.
Tahu I think should have been in the Waratahs and when they finally did give him a run was superb. I also think he would have done better than Ryan Cross in the last few matches.
I’m not pro-league or a fan of it by the way: it’s just a handy source of players.
The Wallabies do have a league player at the moment: Ryan Cross. Surely Timana Tahu would have done better than him?
kingplaymaker said | November 24th 2009 @ 12:12am | Report comment
Pete, consider the team facing Scotland if O’Neill had been someone else: Robinson, Moore, Alexander, Vickerman, Mcmeniman, Elsom, Smith, Palu, Genia, Giteau, Tuqiri, Cooper, Tahu, Hynes, Ashley-Cooper. That team would have won.
Knives Out said | November 24th 2009 @ 12:53am | Report comment
But you have stated that Hynes is useless and so is AAC. Why are they still in your dream team?
Pete said | November 24th 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
KPM, the team on Sunday should have won. They have the talent, something (everything) went horribly amiss.
If only we had Vickerman, McMeniman, Tuqiri and Tahu we would have won…
If only Moore had better body height as he lunged for the line, Rocky ground the ball, Cooper threw the ball to Cross instead of Mitchell, or Gits kicked any of those missed goals… we would have won.. and won easily.
There is no gaurantees that any of those “ARU booted” players would have performed well this season. Who would have thought 12 months ago that Gits would be having a form slump topped off by having the game from hell.
I understand your frustration but unless JON pulls on his boots and stuffs a try or misses a goal I can’t blame him for the loss… but it would be pretty cool if he did ask Robbie to give him a run!
kingplaymaker said | November 24th 2009 @ 10:42am | Report comment
Pete of course you’re right the current team have far too much talent to be unable to beat Scotland. I suppose what I meant was that if those four players had been there all along the team would not have lost so much before, and hence their confidence would not have plummetted, and hence they would not have lost to Scotland.
There’s no guarantee all four of those players would have performed well certainly, but surely some, at least half of them would. Vickerman was a reliable performer: and if Deans can turn Palu into a reliable one, he could well have done the same with some of the other three.
You right though they should have won.
O’Neill seems to be a tremendously powerful man in Australian rugby: I’m sure if he ordered Deans to put him in the team he would have to do it!
Campbell Watts said | November 23rd 2009 @ 6:23pm | Report comment
Hmm..
No cheers on your article KPM.
I’m not suprised!
PJ said | November 24th 2009 @ 12:42am | Report comment
What I think we should have regard to is that rugger in OZ has always walked a fine line. we have been spoilt in recent years with a once in a generation team that performed far beyond what an average aussie team should expect. rugger is very low on the popularity ladder at the best of times with few very real juniors. League kills us in the eastern states, and afl etc everywhere else. Lets put it all in perspective, having said that the game is going nowhere fast and is in for a period of real pain over the next few years. I am not sure it can survive.
The addition of melbourne is a huge mistake. it will not produce more players but will dilute the quality amongst the 5 teams, no one will make the finals, so there will be even less interest in the super 15 to go along with no FTA.
Matt0931 said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:52am | Report comment
KPM, firstly thanks for spending the time to write your article. Although I don’t agree with some of your points I do appreciate the time and work that is put into these articles.
It is easy to state that NZ has an amzing depth in their ranks but to be honest I do not think it is that simple. For example, just take a look at how the AB’s perform when either Carter or McCaw are out of the team.
Vickerman was not pushed out of the wallaby team. He wanted to go to uni to study. My friend had lunch with him a few months before he announced this and he made it clear at the time that it was to ‘try something different’. There is still the chance that he will return.
Tuqiri was a good rugby player but he wasn’t playing well in the lead up to his sacking. Some say it is because he was playing for the tahs and their game style didn’t give him a chance to develop. I think it is more becasue he was past his prime…which is the reason Deans didn’t pick him for the warm up matches and the real reason Deans was happy for him to go.
As for lack of player depth. I think the depth of the wallabies is not as bad as many people have you believe in comparison with many other rugby nations. Many countries only have one or two (if their lucky) players covering all positions and this is currently the case with the wallabies.
Take the English and the springboks for example. When they have their full squad they are good teams. The english came second in the 6 nations last year and the springboks won everything in front of them. But this november with a number of injuries or non-starters to their key players they are very very average.
I think at present the wallabies are a strong team. They now have a strong forward pack who are scrummaging well. They do need a lot of work on their lineouts and they obviously need to do some work on those backs. I think a major problem in Scotland (apart from that the centres were second/third choice players) was that the backs were all too small and none of these players had the required bulk to run directly and use their weight to try and break the Scottish lines. Mortlock and Barnes should be able to rectify this problem.
Knives Out said | November 24th 2009 @ 2:28am | Report comment
‘Take the English and the springboks for example. When they have their full squad they are good teams. The english came second in the 6 nations last year and the springboks won everything in front of them. But this november with a number of injuries or non-starters to their key players they are very very average.’
England had 9 first teamers absent and various other subs. 25 players in total. That is a decimation.
kingplaymaker said | November 24th 2009 @ 6:17am | Report comment
Matt thank you: it’s very kind of you to say that.
To reply to your points.
It’s true that depth seems to be spread in odd ways in different countries. For example in Australia there is endless talent in the inside backs (Giteau, Barnes, O’Connor, Cooper, Beale) and almost none, Digby Ioane aside, in the outside backs.
I agree that there isn’t perhaps as much in New Zealand as is sometimes made out. They seem especially dry in the forwards for example, and at fly-half. On the other hand they will argue they have lost Nick Evans, Carl Hayman, Greg Somerville, Chris Jack and Jerry Collins.
Perhaps it’s a case that the recent shift in the Tri-nations hierarchy has to do with which country has lost the most players overseas: New Zealand have lost the most, then Australia and then South Africa.
However, even if New Zealand perhaps don’t produce the endless riches I said above, they probably have just enough to get away with, and just a little more than the Wallabies, who don’t quite have enough to get away with.
15 is a small number in the end and so long as they have 15 great players it’s fine, but just 2 or 3 under and things change.
So I agree with you that the Wallabies are nowhere near as bad as everyone says, and I personally don’t think they lack passion at all. But they are just 4 players short of 15, which means they lose.
Vickerman may well be enjoying himself abroad now, and so the question is whether John O’Neill has the persuasive powers to bring him back.
Indeed I said little of the future in the article. What can John O’Neill do to improve playing stocks? Any new players now would have a full two years before the World Cup, which would be plenty.
The All Blacks claim they are looking to bring some of their old players back over before the World Cup: is O’Neill doing the same?
I’ve thought a lot about Tuqiri’s loss of form. There are two possibilities: a temporary confidence-related problem, or a permanent decline due to age.
If the latter, then the Wallabies are far better without him. However, I think the loss of form when it arrived was simply too sudden to be due to age, and was probably, like the decline of Rokocoko (who’s 25), more psychological then anything else. Perhaps Robbie Deans could have restored his confidence and effectiveness: we’ll never know.
Tuqiri and Mortlock did give Australia physical penetration it’s true, but Tuqiri’s gone and Mortlock’s body seems fallible. It could be that new options must be explored in this area.
I think that it’s really only on the wings and in the second row that the Wallabies are short of good players, so I agree that they’re not a bad team at all.
I hope O’Neill is currently scouring the earth to plug those crucial gaps.
Pete said | November 24th 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
KPM – I agree wholeheartedly – “I hope O’Neill is currently scouring the earth to plug those crucial gaps.”
… and I hope he has a plan to improve the depth of Australian Rugby outside of an extra Super Rugby franchise
Knives Out said | November 24th 2009 @ 6:24am | Report comment
‘I agree that there isn’t perhaps as much in New Zealand as is sometimes made out. They seem especially dry in the forwards for example’
Thomson, Read, Donnelly, O.Franks… What other test nation has introduced such good players this season?
‘But they are just 4 players short of 15, which means they lose.’
This presupposes that every other team is 12/13/14/15/15 which clearly can’t be true across a broad scale.
‘The All Blacks claim they are looking to bring some of their old players back over before the World Cup: is O’Neill doing the same?’
Like whom? Peter Hewat, Rodney Blake, Julian Salvi?
Greg Russell said | November 24th 2009 @ 10:54am | Report comment
To illustrate KO’s point: there was a TV feature on Owen Franks before last weekend’s test.
Interviewer (Ian Jones): “Did you ever imagine you would be in this position?”
OF: “Well I started the season as the fourth-ranked prop at the Crusaders, and now I’m the starting tight-head for the All Blacks against England.”
And he played very well too!
kingplaymaker said | November 24th 2009 @ 11:22am | Report comment
Greg I meant dry by New Zealand standards, which are extremely high.
They no longer have the best set of forwards in the world and were comprehensively out-muscled by South Africa this year, which wouldn’t have happened not so long ago.
Knives Out said | November 24th 2009 @ 11:12pm | Report comment
That’s certainly debatable, but given that the NZ pack fielded such callow players as Owen Franks and Ross then there is no long-term issue. It seems easy to forget that Ali Williams was injured, and now all of a sudden Graham Henry will have Thorn, Jack, Williams, Donnelly, Boric and Ross competing for the second row berths next season. If you add to that the competition for places in other positions 2: Hore/Mealamu, 3: Tialata/Franks/Afoa, 6: Thomson/Kaino and 8 :Read/So’oialo, then it becomes clear that NZ has an excellent forward platform. Conversely, the SA pack has been badly shown up since the 3N. Prior to Henry’s arrival the NZ forward pack was mediocre at best. Henry reversed that trend and he looks to be doing the same thing again.
Greg Russell said | November 24th 2009 @ 11:17am | Report comment
This article is mostly very good, and certainly comes closer to identifying the gravamen (yes, that’s a real word) of Australia’s problem than other articles this week (or this year, for that matter).
Is it really so painful for Wallaby supporters to have to admit that the team simply doesn’t have the cattle? Personally I find this a far more comforting explanation than that of “the team didn’t try hard enough”, “the team has no pride in the jersey”, “Matt Giteau is a pretty boy who doesn’t care”, and so on. These are all rather embarrassing explanations, because they are things that should not be the case.
I don’t think there’s a Roarer who doesn’t agree that the return of Vickerman would be a huge plus. However Tuqiri remains as divisive a figure as ever. It’s interesting that John Eales wrote in the Fin Review that the Wallabies are missing Tuqiri far more than most people realize. While I have the utmost respect for the passion of people like stillmissit (“Give me a Hynes over a Tuquiri any day”), I’m afraid I must have more respect for the view of Eales on this one.
Tahu is an interesting case. Deans is on record that he tried to recruit Tahu to the Crusaders (a factor in this would be that he is eligible for the All Blacks). So I tend to think that Deans probably wanted Tahu to be a success in rugby, and that he’s sad that he has returned to league. I’d suggest that move was driven largely by the player himself: he wanted to play regularly (cf. the fractured season of Australian rugby), and he wanted to be at home with his family much more.
I also suspect that kpm is wrong that “Deans seems not to have realised yet that Australia does not contain the same abundant riches.” In fact all the evidence is that he does – why else would he take the highly unusual step of going to the media to tell John O’Neill that Australia needs a national competition? (see Wayne Smith on this a few weeks ago).
So I don’t think that Deans has the power over player comings and goings that is implied above. I also suspect that O’Neill himself would like to be able to retain a lot more players, but he has to deal with the bottom line. That bottom line is that if Hugh McMeniman can earn triple his salary in Japan, and Dan Vickerman really wants a studying and playing sabbatical in Europe, then the ARU simply does not have the money to counter this.
The Phantom said | November 24th 2009 @ 11:59am | Report comment
With so many posts above stating that Vickerman et all would be the saviours of the current troubles, maybe it is time for the ARU to stop demanding that if you want to play for the Wallabies you have to be contracted to the ARU.
I think I saw on another post that the ARU spends upwards of $27 million on player payments. why not drop that to $15 million and use the change for junior development and the (re)creation of a nation competition.
Those players who want to play for the Wallabies have to be available to return home for the winter tests (NH off season) and also for the November test window. There are only so many places available for foreign players in the European comps so we would lose some but the S15 & ARC would still be of a good standard and marketable.
kingplaymaker said | November 24th 2009 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
Thanks Greg, and your word ‘gravamen’ sounds somehow like a description of the Wallabies at the moment.
I actually think that the Wallabies ‘passion’ has undergone two phases this year: the first, when it was muted due to serious internal disruption resulting from that sacking, the second, when it was high but damaged by a loss of confidence after all those losses on the field. I think overall they’ve played with tremendous passion and resilience, and it’s unfotunate to watch them trying as hard as they can but jittery and uncertain because of destroyed self-belief (and limited by their talent).
It all comes down to how much money the ARU has to spend on players for the Wallabies. If there really is so little, then the firing of Tuqiri, the loss of Tahu, the non-recruitment of Hunt and the non-maintenance of Mcmeniman make some financial sense. However, is it possibly the case that O’Neill was simply unaware how much money the financial turnaround he achieved created? It seems that he was still assuming the ARU were in the desperate financial position he inherited upon arrival, when in fact they had enough money to keep and splash out on a few players. Maybe the global economic crisis frightened him further. However it was a big miscalculation in that he weakened the Wallabies so much that their season was a disaster, and even financially it was mistaken as the succession of losses will have devastated crowd numbers and ARU income.
If the ARU has enough money now that it has cut every single other expense, surely this is the one time when buying some old and new players would really help. O’Neill said in an interview recently that someone told him the Wallabies were just two or three players short of a great team (it must have occurred to him that he was responsible for the loss of those two or three players). Now though he should use the money available to him and his silver-smooth tongue to get those extra players.
In my mind there really is very little to it: 5 players less, 5 players more. The solution is as simple as the problem.
As I mention in a response above Tuqiri’s loss of form was either a permanent probably physical decline, or a temporary psychological issue (like Rokocoko): in the first case his absence would be good, in the second bad. I think that it was probably a temporary problem, as it was too sudden a loss of form to result from ageing. Robbie Deans could well have brought back that confidence in the same way he has with Palu.
It is indeed harder to pin the blame for Tahu. I think that even though he was inclined to leave because of family matters, he had also been inclined to stay before, and that therefore he could probably have been persuaded to stay if the will had been there be it on Deans part or O’Neill’s (think what he could have done in Cross’ place in the last few matches!).
I think Deans’ realisation of the resources at his disposal has evolved: this week he has for the first time as far as I remember said that the playing depth is limited and that the best players are all out here. Again, he only went to the media over the third tier recently too. It probably seemed to him last year that even with what was available he could work his miracles, and it took the painful unmasking of that illusion, when a couple of crucial figures were removed for the hidden reality to manifest its ugly self.
How much power does Deans have over player comings and goings? Probably not much as you say. Maybe something though.
It’s not all negative however. Buy those 5 players and with a great coach like Deans things could very soon be rosy once more.
Pippinu said | November 24th 2009 @ 11:36am | Report comment
An interesting article from KPM and a good post from Greg R.
On a lighter note (and let’s be honest, a bit of levity is required at the minute), I thought I had seen it all, until I came across Greg’s “gravamen”.
Not that I would doubt the word of a gentleman, but I had to look it up, being the first I’ve ever seen it, and I”m sorry to say that I couldn’t find it in my Chambers.
This calls for desperate measures. As it happens, I’ve got a DVD of the Macquarie sitting here on my desk, which I have been too lazy to load for nigh on a year.
This appears a good a time as any to do precisely that – back in a jif.
Pippinu said | November 24th 2009 @ 11:53am | Report comment
Ok – I’m back again – I trust you didn’t have to wait.
So I’ve loaded my Macquarie, and I’m happy to confirm that “gravamen” is indeed a word!! (never doubted you Greg!)
So here is a cut and paste:
gravamen
/gruh’vaymuhn/ noun, plural gravamina /gruh’vamuhnuh/.
1. that part of an accusation which weighs most heavily against the accused; the burden or substantial part of a charge or complaint.
2. a grievance.
[LL, from L gravare load, weigh down. Cf. grieve]
Any wiser after that? Nor am I!!!
But here is a hint – if you ever have cause to use this word again – the plural is “gravamina”.
Greg Russell said | November 24th 2009 @ 11:58am | Report comment
Try this (from my Mac’s dashboard dictionary): “The essence or most serious part of a complaint or accusation”.
Pippinu said | November 24th 2009 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
Greg
you’re not gloating about having a Mac are you?
At least you gave me the impetus to finally load that damn Macquarie!!
Firestarter Bob said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
The breakdown is the gravamen of rugby.
pothale said | November 24th 2009 @ 11:31pm | Report comment
I thought Matt Giteau was the gravamen – going by what I’ve read so far.