Lack of structure is crippling the Wallabies

Roar Rookie

By bmwwilliams, 25 Nov 2009 bmwwilliams is a Roar Rookie

Tagged:: Grand Slam tour, International Rugby, Rugby Union, wallabies

Related coverage

Australian Wallabies halfback Will Genia (bottom right) passes the ball during the team training session in Brisbane, Friday, Sept. 4, 2009. The Wallabies play South Africa in their Tri-Nations match at Suncorp Stadium tomorrow. AAP Image/Dave Hunt

A lot of column inches this week have gone into trying to apportion responsibility for the Wallabies’ shocking loss to Scotland over the weekend.

Most of these have put the blame on the doorstep of the playing group, with some suggesting the players have gotten to the point where they just can’t be bothered anymore.

Watching the Wallabies on the weekend, however, I don’t believe a word of it. Until the end, the players were dominating possession and territory.

Instead, what I see when I watch the Wallabies is a team stripped of its structure by Robbie Deans’ demands for a ‘spontaneous’ playing style.

Spontaneity is a great ideal to aspire to, on the assumption that the perfect team will never drop a pass, never throw it forward, never make the wrong decisions; even in the most pressure-filled situations.

Realistically, however, it means that the Wallabies are now unable to capitalise on attacking opportunities when they present themselves, crippled by a lack of preparation and rehearsal for those situations.

Columnists can complain all they want that the Wallabies playing skills are not up to standard, that they should be able to handle Deans’ playing demands.

But the reality is that the coach has made some very talented players look like bumbling fools.

This lack of structured play also means the team has nowhere to go once under pressure from the opposition. The Wallabies have no backup plan: no reliable way of gaining metres with ball in hand when the pressure is on.

They have no play to fall back on at times when a mistake would be unacceptable.

That is Deans’ fault.

And it is, I believe, the reason why the Wallabies give the appearance of just giving up when under the blowtorch.

We see the Wallabies’ problems most focused on the backline, because this is where Deans’ demands are most dominant.

In more structured times, Stephen Larkham would receive the ball, and have the likes of Giteau, Stirling Mortlock and Chris Latham each running at high speed, and at different angles.

He would simply pick one of these runners off, to devastating effect.

Now, we see the unfortunate Giteau at first receiver, and what’s outside him? A near-static line of men, each waiting for someone to ‘be spontaneous’, and create something from nothing.

Also, putting pure playmakers at 10 and 12 may be an admirable ideal, but it is unreliable under pressure. The All Blacks and Springboks consistently use Ma’a Nonu, and Jean de Villiers, respectively, as a means of safely getting over the advantage line.

Two of the best 12’s in the world are not playmakers, but hard, straight runners. They give their teams shape on the field. Quade Cooper in the same position was reduced to leaping into the air to try to bamboozle the Scottish defence.

In my opinion, Deans has stripped the Wallabies of their ability to reliably make the advantage line, to play mistake-free rugby, and to stand up well to pressure situations on the field.

It is not the attitude of the players that needs adjusting, but the stubbornness of the coach.

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 (31) | Page 1 of Comments

Gladstone said | November 25th 2009 @ 6:52am | Report comment

Good post Beemer – as good an explanation as any I’ve seen as to why a team with a lot of individual talent can’t get it together.

Let’s have your thinking on what kind of preparations we need for the RWC and what, from this far out, might be our best 15.

Reply
- bmwwilliams said | November 25th 2009 @ 10:30pm | Report comment
  
  Gladstone,
  
  I don’t condone sacking Deans before the WC…I think he has brought a lot of good to the Wallabies playing style. Instead, I think his tactics need moderating, and a lot of that lies in selection.
  
  AAC is a world class line breaker and kick receiver, but his tactical kicking is well below par.
  Call it unusual, but I personally think he’d be most effective as a roving winger…his skills should be being used to break the advantage line, not trying to make up lost ground from the back. He already has a knack for popping up at good angles from behind the line, and this position would give him more freedom to do so.
  We’ve also seen this season that his finishing in the corners is well beyond anyone else’s capabilities. This would also have the effect of removing an underperforming Drew Mitchell from the field.
  
  At fullback, I personally would be happy to sacrifice speed (which Deans seems unwilling to do) for a solid catcher/tactical kicker. I expect I’ll get flamed for this, but I was very impressed by Mark Gerrard this past Super 14. I realise he’s looked very shaky in Wallabies colours in the past, but given time, he must have been capable of bringing that form to the Test stage. Too late now to turn him into a solid Wallaby before the WC.
  Hopefully he’ll reappear in good form before 2012. Realistically though, Cam Shepherd is a similarly-strong tactical player.
  
  For me, an ideal 2012 backline would look like:
  
  9. Genia
  10. Cooper/Toomua (depending on who looks the goods in a couple of years)
  11. AAC
  12. Giteau
  13. Ioane
  14. Hynes/Mitchell (Just there to make up the numbers. Similarly useless)
  15. Shepherd
  
  Reply
  - bmwwilliams said | November 25th 2009 @ 10:46pm | Report comment
    
    Sorry, forgot about Berrick Barnes at 10. Add him in too.
    
    Reply
Short-Blind. said | November 25th 2009 @ 7:09am | Report comment

bmw I agree with a caveat. If you recall how Canterbury played under Deans (whats in front of you with spontaneity etc), a few key attributes facilitated and enabled the success of this style of play:

1. whole of team vision to see the opportunity and take it – if they sensed a clear overlap no matter where on the field they would have the skills and nouse to play basic draw and pass to take advantage of it. This included forwards and backs.
2. skills – actually have the skills to (straighten) draw and pass, put in the correct length kick (short or long), position yourself so as not to require a fwd pass to be thrown to you etc. this includes fwds and backs!
3. support play – whenever a tackle was made the ball runner would turn and ALWAYS have someone in support to either pass to or secure the ball in the ensuing maul/ruck.
4 play the 80 minutes – how many times did you see the crusaders win games in the last 10 minutes (like the all blacks) – they believed in their systems, played with patience and control and eventually the try would come. superior fitness and conditioning helped here.

So where does that leave us with the Wallabies supposedly trying to play the same style? How do they score in each of these areas?
1. At this stage the Wallabies do not possess the complete vision required to take the opportunities presented – there have been clear overlaps in recent games (which required straight running draw and pass) and the playmakers (cooper and giteau primarily) would kick it away or take the wrong option (coopers fwd pass to mitchell vs Scots).
2. The Wallabies skills (surprisingly considering they are professionals at the top level) are a mixed bag. There has been some improvement by some players this year, however, a lot of their kicking is without effect and just gives ball back to opposition with no pressure on. Their passing can be OK but the backs are just to flat, running across the field and cannot seem to do the absolute basics (draw and pass) when required. Can you see the Wallabies locks seeing an opportunity and then executing a decent draw and pass? NO Chris Jack and Thorn could do it.
3. The Wallabies support play during this tour has been woeful. How many times have they made a break and then been penalised for holding the ball due isolation and no support. AAC always breaks the line but infrequently turns to pop a pass to a supporting ball runner. Our main go forward line breaker – Palu – very rarely pops the pass to a supporting runner. WHY? maybe lack of effort/fitness to get there or lack of coaching to emphasise it – not sure.
4. The Wallabies have lost so many tests this year because they fell away in the last 20/10. They were better in this department against Scotland but remember the Irish?

So in summary for Deans to make his Crusader game plan work he needs to fix up all of these things and have the players able to show the skills, belief and passion to achieve the outcome required WINNING. In the beginning I thought Deans may be able to do it but the longer I see this Wallaby team play (the same) without learning and improvement in these key areas, the more I think it will never happen and he needs to go back to the black board.

Reply
NickF said | November 25th 2009 @ 8:01am | Report comment

I’m getting confused. You say it’s because they are told to be spontaneous, that they lack structure, Eddie Jones is quoted today as saying that they need to trust their instincts more, that they play a structured NZ type of game (albeit baddly). It’s possible that you are all correct.

I actually think it goes further back to the coaching at super 14 level, and maybe before that. Look at the season the Australian sides have had. They are all pretty stoggy, over structured and don’t learn to think for themselves, and then have to relearn a style under Deans. To be successful the S14 Aust teams need to work more to a national style approach, but that will never happen. I can’t imagine Qld and NSW agreeing on anything let alone ACT listening to anyone outside their borders, and then there is WA….

Reply
sheek said | November 25th 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment

BMW,

Fundamentally, your argument is flawed. To play ‘spontaneously’, or even ‘running rugby’, requires a greater adherence to structure than people realise or appreciate. It doesn’t “just happen”.

The French, in their hey-day, threw the ball around like demented chooks with their heads cut off, but there was little structure in their play. Sometimes they got away with it. often, they paid dearly for any mistakes.

England in the 1991 WC final against the Wallabies, decided to throw the ball around. But they achieved little, because there was no pre-thought on accompanying structure. Running rugby simply doesn’t “just happen”.

When Deans coached Canterbury, their ability to play spontaneously, or counter-attack from anywhere on the paddock, was built on strict adherence to structure. Part of that was ensuring every person in possession of the ball had the option of offloading to a team mate as often as possible, maximising the options.

To be able to do that, puts a lot of pressure on the attacking team to put themselves in ‘position’ as much as possible. It requires greater effort to continuously back up. But not only back up, but in the most advantageous position to receive the ball. That is structure.

The great Mark Ella argued as much with his running rugby theory. He argued it took greater effort, & required greater discipline, to play running rugby, than to kick the ball for field position, which is the lazy man’s, or frightened man’s, or poorly skilled man’s, option.

Footnote – Bob Dwyer also discovered during his first stint as Wallabies coach (1982-83) that while he might have been a champion of running rugby, it couldn’t work effectively without a solid forwards platform. In short, to play expansive rugby requires an excellent skills set, from the front-row right through to the outside backs.

This current Wallabies team simply lacks the individual skills & abilities to succeed regularly, or against the very best opposition. And these problems go back to before they were called into the Wallabies.

Reply
- bmwwilliams said | November 25th 2009 @ 11:37am | Report comment
  
  Sheek,
  
  I agree completely. The Crusaders’ ability to play spontaneous rugby was based on tactical dominance of possession (McCaw) and field position/ ball distribution (Carter). Spontaneous rugby can be used to cut a team to pieces once a team is on the front foot, but more structured play is needed to get them on the front foot in the first place.
  
  Deans’ inability to recreate this style of play at the Wallabies suggests that maybe he was gifted this tactical dominance at the Crusaders…He doesn’t seem to be understanding why his old tactics aren’t working in Wallabies setup.
  
  Basically, I’m saying that we need structure, so that opportunities for running rugby can be created. Deans has opted for fast, running players (O’Connor at fullback, Mitchell and Turner appearing anywhere on the field??) at the expense of tactical advantage, and seems to be too stubborn to change his ways.
  
  Reply
  - sheek said | November 25th 2009 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
    
    Understood.
    
    Reply
Red Rooster said | November 25th 2009 @ 10:10am | Report comment

NickF – always easy to blame the states. Why is it that Deans has not asked the provinces to align in style.He is on record as saying he does not want the states to play the same way but instead explore ideas and he is leaving selection and positional choices up to the state coaches. So if Deans does not want it then dont blame the states. By the way there is little love between the NZ provinces or SA for that matter and none of the teams play the same style yet they come together for a National result. In fact the Walabies have done this for years in the past so why is it now so different? France pick from 14 clubs and they can still win

Reply
- sheek said | November 25th 2009 @ 10:56am | Report comment
  
  Red Rooster,
  
  This is unrealistic. When Rod MacQueen first hit upon playing Larkham at flyhalf, Eddie Jones, then Brumbies coach, refused to co-operate, believing Larkham best served the Brumbies at fullback.
  
  It’s all very well saying all the states should fall in line with the national coach’s preferred playing style.
  
  I agree with Deans. It’s good to have the provinces playing different styles. Once guys reach senior level, for their own future & well-being, they need the flexibility to play more than one style anyway. It comes down to having the best individual skills they can develop.
  
  When Guus Hiddinck became Socceroos coach in 2005, he told the players it was his job to develop their tactical awareness & strategic understanding. The fitness & basic skills should already be in place once you are selected for the national team.
  
  Reply
  - Cotton McKnight said | November 25th 2009 @ 3:41pm | Report comment
    
    Red Rooster, You are right ot is easy to blame the states, but I feel this year the Wallabies have performed very similar to the way the states did in the S14.
    
    NSW forwards did quite well this year, but the backline was dreadful, and the selection policy was even worse, with the Tahu debacle and constant swapping of flyhalves and picking Tom Carter, then dropping him not to mention Rob Horne on the bench then starting then on the bench again. How many of NSW backline have been picked in the Wallabies.
    
    Compare this to Qld, the Australian backline is full of Queenslanders, this is not a problems as such, except The Reds finished 2nd last, for goodness sake. Don’t get me wrong here, I am not saying that they shouldn’t be there.
    
    ACT, the best performing province but only represented by Ashley Cooper in the backline, as Mortlock is injured
    
    And WA, probably the better backline with Giteau and O Connor standing out, but they could seem to win much, sound a bit familiar.
    
    I like the theory of allowing the provinces to develop and explore different ideas, but not to many of these ideas have worked and we end up with a team that doesn’t gel very well, gets a bit lost under pressure, and lacks composure. It also seems that players from the different provincial teams don’t mix very well, Burgess and Giteau being the prime example, Where Genia and Cooper and Ioni form a good combination, throw in Cross, not so except when he works with Giteau. This is a generalisation, but you get my point.
    
    Although I do not want ot go back to the days of just NSW and Qld, we had good combinations and a better understand of what “Australian” rugby was. Back then it was basically strong Qld lineout, NSW frontrow, Qld kicking flyhalf and NSW outside back, with various degrees of balance. It had it’s advantages, except we may never have seen the Stephen Larkhams of Aust rugby come through.
    
    Reply
    - sheek said | November 25th 2009 @ 3:59pm | Report comment
      
      Cotton McKnight,
      
      Back in the 70s for example, Queensland & NSW would play each other twice, & maybe twice again against inbound touring teams, plus maybe matches against their Country counterparts & Victoria. So six (6) games top.
      
      Which is much less than each province plays today. So the argument that yesterday’s players had a bette opportunity to develop combinations doesn’t really hold water.
      
      Quite often the first test of a home 2 or 3 test series was a given loss, since the players would need both the tough competition & outing with each other to be better prepared next time.
      
      In those days, the best opportunities for developing combinations was on tour, when you might have anything from 4-8 games before the first away test.
      
      I guess I’m saying today’s players actually have it much better. So it comes back to the players themselves (again)…..
      
      Reply
      - Cotton McKnight said | November 26th 2009 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
        
        Sheek, point taken. But what explains the serious lack of combination. When I was younger (and much thiner) I played both halfback an flyhalf, and I was taught to put the ball in front of the player, or if receiving, call and play behind the pass so as to run on to it. This is U12s rugby basic play. Why can’t Burgess and Giteau do this or for that matter Cooper and anyone outside them. Michael Lynagh once said he learnd from Mark Ella to run “lazily in support”. Simple stuff, even I can see it.
        
        Reply
Hoy said | November 25th 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment

I am very torn on all of this. I will focus on the backs as that is where our attack is poor these days.

Will Genia is the find of the year. If there was one thing I would like, is for him to get the ball out of the ruck quicker. I think we are taking far too much time there, allowing the defense to get set. Might not be his fault, but needs addressing.

At the risk of bashing the shit out of Gits, he is an ordinary 5/8. He can’t run a backline. We all know it. Every now and again he takes on the line and wins, but 1) he can’t pass that well, 2) he can’t kick out of hand that well either, and 3) he makes poor choices.

So, after 6 months of screaming for it, Scotland surely has to be the final straw for him at 10.

What now? People asking for Beale to be given a go? He played wing last night didn’t he? Plus he couldn’t even keep his 10 spot at the Tahs. Barnes is the long term goer provided he can be kept fit. His injury toll recently has me pretty concerned about this factor. For this weekend, Cooper must be given the 10 jersey and told to play at 5/8 all game. No more switching.

With Cooper at 10, hopefully we can throw the ball out in front, rather than what I have been seeing recently with the deep second man plays trying to give us some width.

Here is the next big thing: Does O’Connor play better at 12 than anywhere else? Yes. So either play him there, or not at all. It will ruin his development to play him elsewhere. So then either Gits gets on board at 12, or is dropped altogether. Apparently O’Connor played well at 12 last night. I didn’t see, so can’t really judge.

Finally, Cross. This bloke is a cruiser at best. To my mind, he should not be in the squad. He doesn’t run hard and straight in space, he still crabs sideways. He makes poor decisions in defense. So Digby could be our long term option there, as a belter of a runner, however as it is mentioned above, I am not sure about his distribution. If he can get that right, then all is well and good. If he can’t, then AAC must be our 13 to give us some direct running in the line.

AAC has been moved so much I am amazed he knows how to play any position to the level he does. I never used to be a fan, however this year, he has really won me over. He has been great. I am not 100% about his distribution at 13 either though. He is good at tucking the ball and going hard.

Hynes is good. He is not flashy, but then Mitchell is and Hynes is lightyears ahead of him. His defense is great (having defended at the Reds all his career), his catching and kicking are good. He is often in the right place at the right time, and is a good finisher when we can put things together.

So I think we need either a winger, or a fullback? Turner is a non entity at this level, and Mitchell has had so many oppurtunities, but all we keep getting are pained expressions as he kicks 90 degrees into the crowd.

IWhat to do?

Reply
- PastHisBest said | November 25th 2009 @ 1:53pm | Report comment
  
  Sheek, two words – Cam Shepherd.
  
  Reply
  - sheek said | November 25th 2009 @ 4:01pm | Report comment
    
    PHB,
    
    Saying too little can be as confusing as saying too much. Your point re Cam Shepherd….. ?
    
    Reply
Tock said | November 25th 2009 @ 1:05pm | Report comment

Sheek is correct, you can only play what is in front of you when you have put in the hard work at traing, running different lines moves etc. The whole purpose of any move is to probe for an opening when it occurrs that is when the next part of the play book is thrown away and the player puts the pedal to the metal. It is at this point every one adjusts and it is the work that is done by the players off the ball that makes the difference.

MG is an inside centre that is where he has played most of his international rugby. He reminds me of Tim Horan in many ways and I remember when Horan was played at 5/8 a few times it was a disaster. If you watch MG interviewed you would hardly form the view that he was an intellectual giant. He needs to play in the more instinctive role of inside centre.

I have watched all the Wallaby games this year and I think it simply comes down to the fact that we are playing rugby that is about two years out of date. Hence the lack of effective counter rucking and lack of sufficient driving numbers at the breakdown on our ball. Their were signs that this is being corrected on this tour. The other problem that this is contributing to is our incapacity to to convince referrees that we are the good guys. It is useless whinging about referees, their confidence in you as a team has to be massaged and a far more subtle approach has to taken to ensure an even share of the decisions. The All Blacks dont whinge about refs too often (except stu Dickinson) they just adapt and get on with it.

I read Mad Eye Moodies (eddie Jones) comments this morning and for once I agree in part at least. Deans is trying to play a traditional NZ style and it does not suit Australian rugby. Especially the mid field bombs, great way to turn over possession and allow the opposition an opportunity to counter attack (any back practising this foul obscenity should have his leg broken – just joking about the broken leg).

One more thing the point about the work done off the ball is where we are really being killed be it in the forwards at line out scrum etc or round the paddock for both backs and forwards.

Reply
sheek said | November 25th 2009 @ 1:44pm | Report comment

Just for interest, the Randwick Galloping Greens used to emphasize the 3 Ps – ‘possession, position, pace’.

Secure possession; be in position to use the ball; & do everything at pace.

I also believe they pinched the original idea from a clever Otago coach named Vic Cavagnah, famous in the 40s & 50s.

Reply
Tock said | November 25th 2009 @ 1:52pm | Report comment

Its the pace thats most notably missing and I dont mean running speed, perhaps urgency is a better word.

Reply
- Go_the_Wannabe's said | November 25th 2009 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
  
  Yes, good point. Against the Scots, the only time they showed any real urgency was when there was only 2 minutes to go and they needed to score to avoid defeat.
  
  They need to start the Welsh game like they finished the Scots game.
  
  Reply
- sheek said | November 25th 2009 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
  
  Tock,
  
  That’s correct. In the context above, pace actually means ‘urgency’. The ability to move the ball quickly through the hands & throw defensive patterns out of alignment.
  
  Reply
Stash said | November 25th 2009 @ 3:10pm | Report comment

You can take the kiwi out of New Zealand – but you can’t take the New Zealand out of the Kiwi.

Is Deans trying to make the Wallabies play like the All Blacks?

The ABs often strike when open play occurs – which can give the impression of spontaneity – is this what Deans is trying to instill when he discusses playing whats in front of you?

There are a couple of questionable performers in the team (but no other countries have a perfect team), …there’s a lot of skill, ability and, dare i say it, “emotion”.

Deans is a good coach and he will undoubtedly wring some good performances out of the wallabies, but I can’t help thinking that Deans is fantasizing about the Wallabies becoming the new All Blacks….which is never going to happen. Its simply a different playing style mined from a rugby culture that diiffers on too many levels and ingrained from childhood.

Come on – ever heard an Australian attempting to do a Kiwi accent?

Australia needs an Australian coach.

Reply
- sheek said | November 25th 2009 @ 4:08pm | Report comment
  
  Stash,
  
  I continually argue sacking Deans is a cop-out. A stop-gap, feel-good solution, but of no benefit in solving long-term issues.
  
  You might actually be right, that there is a cultural problem there between a Kiwi coach & Aussie players. But the problems go beyond Deans. The Wallabies have been under-performing under the direction of Jones, Connolly & now Deans.
  
  Join the dots………. !
  
  Reply
  - Stash said | November 25th 2009 @ 9:35pm | Report comment
    
    Sheek,
    
    Your right, for me Jones was dealt a better hand when it came to the team he inherited, he never struck me as a great coach. And the Connolly era was—well plain awful really.
    
    I just think that there is a lot of talent in the Wallabies – that for whatever reason is unable to be tapped (apart from on the odd unpredictable occasion).
    
    Having being used to winning, Deans is not coping well with losing. He actually looks quite traumatised. The confidence he had when he had huge support from NZ who many wanted him as the AB coach and when he had beat the ABs in Sydney at the start of his reign has evaporated… well that masterplan has been broken into a million piece and Deans looks like a shadow of his former self.
    
    Reply
    - Stash said | November 25th 2009 @ 9:40pm | Report comment
      
      While Henry is not liked by all – and he is a stubborn old mule – he copes publicly with the pressure really well… (interviewers are often scared off him, which is great).
      
      Deans in comparison is not projecting this at all – quite the opposite in fact. He looks about as comfortable as Martin Johnson.
      
      Reply