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
- Rugby Union news
- Wallabies news
- International Rugby Union - Six Nations, Heineken Cup, Rugby Championship news
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.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Grand Slam tour, International Rugby, Rugby Union, wallabies
November 25th 2009 @ 5:18pm
westy said | November 25th 2009 @ 5:18pm | Report comment
NickF I am sure your misquote of eddie Jones was accidental but he said exactly the opposite. ” I think we have lost that structure in the way we play, and we stand wide and we’re lateral and we play like a NZ side.” waiting for some opportunist or special player to make something happen.
The problem is Australian players are different to NZ players . NZ players have generally been some of the best in the world with greater depth and on average physically stronger andfaster than most sides.
Australian sides traditionally while physically OK have been tactically and strategically a little better than most teams. ” I think at the moment we’ve lost that a little bit.
” Ido’nt think his style of attack suits Australian players. ” Some players are naturally instinctive most you have to coach them into it and its the structure you put around them to allow them to play instinctively that counts.
“We stand wide flat and lateral and play like a New Zealand side” with an assumption of superior power and strength that is not always there .
November 25th 2009 @ 8:03pm
Tock said | November 25th 2009 @ 8:03pm | Report comment
Sheek
Once again I agree we need to leave Deans for the long haul now. There are aspects of the tactical play and the line outs that worry me but there are plenty of other positives. It serves no purpose to sack him now. If by this time next year we are in the same position then I think there will be no choice. I suspect though that we will perform better next year. And yes I know it is not possible to go any worse.
November 25th 2009 @ 8:40pm
AussieWallaby said | November 25th 2009 @ 8:40pm | Report comment
Cam shepherd has to be in this team!!!
There are too many ppl being given 2nd chances on this team. Shepherd and Hynes on the wing…..Genia at 9, Lealifano at 10 (Yes he isnt flash but he provides something different), 12 Gits, 13 Ioane, 15 AAC
Thank god i didnt wake up for the scotland game nor did i bother with the pathetic replay….Wales probably will win this weekend and we should forever dig 2009 and bury this season.
If we dont show drastic improvement in 2010, we shouldnt bother catching the flight to NZ the year after!!!
November 25th 2009 @ 10:16pm
westy said | November 25th 2009 @ 10:16pm | Report comment
I do not advocate the sacking of deans. However the questioning of his structure for this team is valid. They do not have the talent athletes or dynamism to play what is “in front of them “. Jones makes clear deans is a very good coach. But the Wallabies came from a structured approach that basically punched the middle probing for weakness with designated runners running various lines ( sometimes alittle too predictable) but in real numbers giving the playmaker ample choice.There was less pressure on the playmaker with this structure. They did not go laterally or stand wide. It also assists when you do not have a classic playmaker.
Dean’s style does not work for the troops he has at his disposal. My concern is that it never will with the current troops .
The scrum has improved sharply but the lineout is a shemozzle and our tactical kicking game stinks. yet we persevere with a backline formation whose positioning seems to assume we win lineouts at ease and a repetitious ineffective kicking game that forfeits possession far to easily. When will Deans realise we do not have Carter kicking. !
November 26th 2009 @ 12:11am
Dave said | November 26th 2009 @ 12:11am | Report comment
Did anyone see the Rugby Club earlier in the year when Rod Kaffer was commenting on the static nature of the wallabies attack?
I believe that it was the Perth Test, and it showed the wallabies simply standing in a line, no bodies moving, no options being provided for the ball player. He contrasted that with the Barnes try in the first NZ test where there were subtle but clever ploys..
This to me screams lack of structure. I agree with some of the posts which suggested that its all fine to play unstructred once the defence is on the back foot, but we are not getting them on the back foot!
The backs stand flat in a line AND deep. Surely thats the worst of both worlds? I used to love watching Larkham playing live. The backs would be incredibly deep and staggered. From a lineout or scrum, Larkham would receive the ball and then just float it. In the distance, you saw (mostly) Mortlock steaming up to take the ball, who invariablly always arrived just in time to take the pass out in front. Perfect passes with perfect runners at perfect angles.
Giteau cant do that. Never has been able to. Cooper can throw those passes. He needs runners though. Structure the set piece moves where we have been the best in the world. Have support runners with set plays for 2 or 3 phases to exploit the advantage line gain of the first phase move. The half gaps will open for 2nd and 3rd phase runners up as the defence is reeling. THEN play it as you see it, and get the ball to our fast finishers once the defence is all over the place.
Mitchell and Turner can finish and have pace. They have shown that in the past. The problem is that they are not strong enough to play the style we are employing. They need big runners like Mortlock, Ione and AAC to punch those holes first.
November 26th 2009 @ 8:33am
ExpatSin said | November 26th 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
Its time to make a hard decision. The Wallabies are not getting better. Every now and again they have a win and low and behold we get a quote, like today from some idiot in the team, that we are “stocked” and looking forward to the next game. What rot. I agree that Australian rugby is “different to NZ and SA rugby but give me a break, rugby basic are the same everywhere. Forget Dean’s and “playing what’s in front of you”. The Wallabies must be learning attacking and defensive moves every week. If they aren’t, what do they do at training, dream about winning. Let’s get a team management group that teaches these skills. You can’t tell me that the Crusaders don’t practice attacking moves. Watching them play is not spontaneity it’s executing pre rehearsed moves effectively. Simple put there are two possible reasons why OZ rugby is where it is now. The current stocks of players are extremely poor and lack altogether any skill or they are not being coached adequately. You guys make the choice. I know what I think.