By Spiro Zavos
November 30th 2009 @ 5:29am
Related coverage
Wallabies wallop Wales, end a bad year superbly
Australia's Rocky Elsom, right, tries to charge down the kick from Wales' Martin Roberts, left, during their international rugby union match at the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff, Wales, Saturday, Nov. 28, 2009. (AP Photo/Tom Hevezi)
‘Australia were superb.’ That was the old curmudgeon himself, the UK Sunday Times rugby writer Stephen Jones’ response to the emphatic and occasionally brilliant 33 – 12, four tries to none, victory over Wales.
Although the praise from Jones the rugby writer for the Wallabies is as extravagant as it is rare, it was well-deserved.
It is rare for Wales to be out-classed so comprehensively at home. A fervent Welsh crowd could only muster some sporadic singing as the pride of the valleys (admittedly without the Little Magician, Shane Williams, for most of the Test) were made to look as second-rate and as clueless on attack as England.
Just before the half-time whistle we had the first and really last glimpse of the 2009 ‘Woellabies’ when Adam Ashley-Cooper fielded a kick inside his 22. Instead of doing the obvious thing and kicking the ball out and ensuring his team went into half time with a 23 – 9 lead, he booted the ball down field.
The inevitable happened. Wales put in a high ball. The Wallabies offended at the ruck and Stephen Jones kicked the penalty. The scoreline tightened just ever so significantly to 23 – 12.
Why did Ashley-Cooper make such a stupid play?
We’ve been asking the same question of him and all the other Wallabies throughout the season. I got an email before the Test from a famous former All Black, who is a noted thinker about the game. ‘Why are the Wallabies playing such dumb rugby?’ he asked. ‘Is it because they just aren’t as smart as Wallabies in the past?’
There is I reckon something in this.
This generation of players have only known professional rugby. They haven’t had to get on with their life outside the game during their careers as older generations of Wallabies had to do.
Perhaps, too, they have been over-coached throughout their careers. The modern player tends to look to the coach to work out what the tactics should be. When things turn to custard on the field, they often don’t seem to be able to work out how to solve their problems.
This seemed to happen in the second half of the Wales Test when, inexplicably, the Wallabies gave away their running game that had given them three tries in the first half and reverted to the kicking game that has been so unsuccessful throughout this season.
Perhaps it is a mark of how the young Wallabies are finally understanding the Robbie Deans philosophy of ‘playing what is in front of you’ that they got their running game back into action and began to threaten the Welsh defence, especially out wide with sweeping passing movements.
The official Man of the Match award went to Matt Giteau who, according to the curmudgeon was ‘magnificent.’ He was that, especially when he ran from the inside centre position. Wales had no defensive answer to the backline attacks set up (legally) behind the flat front line of forwards. Giteau was able to isolate tacklers and ran around or inside them to set up scoring moves.
But my Man of the Match and the best Wallaby all year, in my opinion, was tubby Benn Robinson.
The Wallaby scrum monstered the Welsh pack, with Robinson leading the way. He was good with the ball in hand, catching, forcing a hole, drawing and passing to set up a try with the aplomb of an outside centre. And then on defence it was not unusual for him to make several strong tackles in one sequence of plays.
The Wallabies end the year as they started, with a strong, convincing win.
The first three Tests were won and then only two Tests were won in the next 10. The nadir was reached against Scotland when the Wallabies contrived to lose a Test in which they were (statistically) at their most dominant. Against Wales, they finally turned the dominance into tries.
So despite all the failures and abject play, the Wallabies were able to record convincing victories of the Springboks, England and Wales, and achieve a 20 – 20 draw against Ireland in that team’s only Test this season that was not won.
Deans has cleaned out most of the dead wood left over from the 2007 Rugby World Cup campaign.
He has developed a scrum (with the help of Patricio Noreiga). He has finally got a loose forward trio who complement each other’s play.
Will Genia has solved a perennial halfback problem going back to 2004. Giteau is being forced out of the play-making role that does not suit his instinctive and intuitive skills. Digby Ione has given some bite to the attack.
Taken as a whole, 2009 has been a poor year in terms of results for the Wallabies. For the first time since 2005, the team has had a losing season.
But in terms of getting through the transition period in developing a strong team for the 2011 Rugby World Cup there has been some significant progress. Apparently only 9 of the Wallabies were in the beaten side at Cardiff last year against Wales were in the same that won so splendidly at the Millennium Stadium at the weekend.
If all this sounds too upbeat in a year when most of the rugby, especially that played by Australian sides, was simply unwatchable, I give the last words to the old curmudgeon: ‘Welcome back the Wallabies. And welcome back the concept of rugby as something you would like to go and see.’
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...
(136)
Arky said | November 30th 2009 @ 5:37am | Report comment
A good wrap up on what was a pleasing finale to 2009. The last few paragraphs sum it up – the scrum, a cohesive back row, a genuine contender at half back, Giteau to 12, and some bite with Digby. All of these things bode well for the future. If you could add to it some depth in the locks, and cohesion and attacking ability in the back three there will be the makings of a great team.
No time yet though for high fives all round – plenty of work yet to be done – and we need some results away against NZ and SA before we can be comfortable about where it is all heading.
Blacky said | November 30th 2009 @ 6:04am | Report comment
Well I got that one wrong! I thought Wales were going to tear the wallabies a new one and look what happens. The wallabies played some great rugby.
To be honest though, they were playing a weakened wales team with plenty of injuries before the game and with all those other injuries throughout the match it didn’t leave the welsh with much to work with.
But you can only play what’s in front of you right?
That said, I think all the wallaby players had a great game with the exception of the back three. I’m not saying they had a bad game, it was just a quiet match all round for AAC, Mitchell and Hynes. All three only made 4 runs each with Hynes running the furthest (only 27m).
One other point to note is that with the exception of the Ioane try, the other tries were all scored by the boys up front. It was great to see them playing out wide and teaching the backs how it’s done after that Scottish debacle.
also I thin….bugger it I’m to hung over to type anymore
CliffyTahTah said | November 30th 2009 @ 11:11am | Report comment
Wales did have injuries, but even if Halfpenny and Williams stayed on, we still outplayed them in every area of the game. I can only count a handful of times that the ball was spun to the Welsh backs. Wales should really have the depth to cover these positions, but they dont. I have been reading a lot of English colums about the game, and there has been a lot of excuses for Wales’ performance, but mainly the injuries.
The public seem to forget that we also have injuries, with our 2 best backs out and Sharpe (he is not that good, but still a soldier in the lineout) and the fact that this back line has really only played four games together, starting with England.
Blacky said | November 30th 2009 @ 7:52pm | Report comment
Cliffy, I think you’re missing the point I was making.
We all know the wallanbies have injuries and I’m as stoked as anyone to see them win a match but the truth of the matter is that they were playing a very much weakened Wales team and this must be taken into perspective.
I also don’t think the wallabies had ‘our 2 best backs out’. Barnes is definately missed but in the wales test Mortlock (who I presume you are referrring to) would not be needed as the wales backs are not huge and Mortlocks bulk would not have been as much as a necessitiy as it would have been in Ireland or Scotland. Ioane did a great job at outside centre.
Parisien said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:00pm | Report comment
Minor correction: Tom Shanklin was declared fit before the game but was not selected. (source BBC rugby site)
Parisien said | December 1st 2009 @ 12:33am | Report comment
The doctor definitely declared him fit to play for the test, Gatland chose not to select him. Don’t know whether he would have made much difference to the outcome either way.
AndyS said | November 30th 2009 @ 6:38pm | Report comment
I’m not sure there is anything great about a backline play that goes prop, prop, winger, lock. Aside from the cost of getting them perms, highlights and combs for their socks,it does beg the question who is actually doing the hard yards and how it will go against stiffer opposition.
Now, watching fast long accurate passes getting the ball wide so quickly as to beat the sliding defense – that was great regardless of who carried the ball over the line.
Mr cheese said | November 30th 2009 @ 6:27am | Report comment
Hey Aussies,
tell me what you think of the Stadium in Cardiff. I’ve never been there but it looks pretty good on the box, even when the many thousands of Welsh supporters are as glum as November weather ( as was the case yesterday ).
Have you a better stadium than that in the prison colony ?
I don’t mean a bigger stadium ( I understand that the ‘99 NRL Grand Final was played in front of 110,000 spectators ). Is there a better one in Aussie ?
Best wishes,
CraigB said | November 30th 2009 @ 7:05am | Report comment
dependins what you mean by better. Stadium Australia in Sydney gets tremendous atmosphere when a big international is being play (all codes). The G on Anzac day. Adelaide Oval is the world prettiest ground. Not sure if they are ‘better’ but they are good grounds.
BennO said | November 30th 2009 @ 7:24am | Report comment
Well all the league and union commentators here seem to reckon that nothing beats Lang Park (or Suncorp Stadium as it’s currently known) in Brisbane. It seats 50 odd thousand, and it is a fantastic ground, but I’ve not seen a live match in the UK.
But I don’t reckon any stadium compares to Cardiff Arms or Twickenam because our crowds are so quiet here. A passionate crowd going beserk makes a good stadium a great one I rekcon.
ascough said | November 30th 2009 @ 8:10am | Report comment
it is a fantatsic ground! right smack bang in the middle of cardiff and when the roof is closed and the welsh are singing nothing beats it.
had a fantastic day out there for the 2007 world cup pool match.
Cotton McKnight said | November 30th 2009 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
Great stadium, great crowd, and with singing like that who needs the band to play when the anthem is on. I think the Irish, Welst and Scotish antherm are 3 of the most passionatley sung.
“Ireland, Ireland
Together standing tall
Shoulder to shoulder
We’ll answer Ireland’s call”
Beats
“In joyful strains then let us sing
Advance Australia fair.”
everytime
Darwin hammer said | November 30th 2009 @ 8:52am | Report comment
Shame the pitch is constantly sh!t … suncorp is fantastic and I was mightly impressed with the cake tin in Wgtn for the All Whites game a few weeks back …
Dan said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:44am | Report comment
Although I’m not a huge fan of AFL, going to the AFL grand final day is pretty electrifying with the round colosseum like stadium and the 100,000+ fans that fill it. It’s pretty insane…
Ben said | November 30th 2009 @ 4:35pm | Report comment
Is there a better one in Aussie ?
You must be a Kiwi – the country is called “Australia”, not Aussie………we call New Zealand by its proper name, not Kiwi.
Ora said | November 30th 2009 @ 4:41pm | Report comment
I would have to say most ockers I know say Austraya for some reason or another most of them can’t pronunce the lia. Odd
hammer said | November 30th 2009 @ 6:49am | Report comment
It’s worth noting that Jones in his “team of the AIs” Selected Horwell and Giteau – of all that’s been wrong with the Wallabies (and there’s been a lot) the 2 areas that most have identifed is second row and the clown prince a 1st 5
sums up Jones’ complete lack of anything worth saying or listening to
ohtani's jacket said | November 30th 2009 @ 7:46am | Report comment
His comments about the All Blacks were hilarious.
RickG said | November 30th 2009 @ 7:26am | Report comment
I caught the replay last night. One of the highlights for me had to be when one of the wallabies was lying on the ground and got rucked. The ref blew the peanlty and penalised the player on the ground, not the guy doing the rucking! In Australia it would have been the other way ’round. Great to see. Also great to see some committment and passion from the Wallabies. Benn Robinson MOTM for mine.
johnny-boy said | November 30th 2009 @ 8:23am | Report comment
” inexplicably, the Wallabies gave away their running game that had given them three tries in the first half and reverted to the kicking game that has been so unsuccessful throughout this season.” Bingo – you hit the nail on the head there Spiro. I reckon it was because Deans gave them a bloody good dressing down at half time and told them to stop bloody playing like Australians and go back to playing my NZ way – and the Aussie wimps acquiesced. It is humiliating when northern hemisphere teams have more balls than Australian teams at having a go at running it back at the opposition for the whole game. Shame on you Wallabies shame on you. Hand in your passports on your way home if you intend to persist with that.
For background info – many years ago when getting up in the wee hours to watch All Black tour games with my father – we would chuckle to each other every time the ball came from the halfback to the 1st five – “here comes the pommie pass’ and true to form – every time – and I mean every time, up she’d go. We’d just about choke on our tea and biscuits if one of the british isles teams accidentally passed it. You knew then that the 1st five would be dropped for the next game .
Cotton McKnight said | November 30th 2009 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
I also noticed that when the Wallabies were under a bit of pressure in the second half, Giteau reverted to the midfield kicking as an instinct, only when the forward dominated did Giteau and the backline trust their hands and run with the ball.
Dublin Dave said | December 1st 2009 @ 12:30am | Report comment
“inexplicably, the Wallabies gave away their running game that had given them three tries in the first half and reverted to the kicking game that has been so unsuccessful throughout this season.”
I don’t think it’s inexplicable at all. I think it is clear from this tour that Deans has been trying to build some forward grunt into the Australian team. This does not necessarily mean that he is eschewing back play entirely, as Australia’s first half performance against Wales showed, but he has clearly identified the humiliation of Marseilles during the last world cup as an event not to be repeated next time round and so he wants to shore up the Australian scrum and build some real fight into its ability at the breakdown.
In this he has achieved some success so far, with a scrum able to dominate both Ireland and Wales and a real find at flanker in the Zimbabwean import Pocock. If this progress continues, or is even maintained at its current level, Australia will be a real handful come the World Cup.
I don’t think Australians can complain too much about the results they got on this tour, nor should they feel any need to. The limitations of a “keep it tight and kick everything” game were exposed against Scotland and Ireland but a reversion to traditional type against Wales produced a good win. And it must be nice as ever to beat England, even if they are way off where they should be.
Any notion pumped up in advance that Australia could win a grand slam with such an experimental approach, by their own standards, was bound to produce a lot of flatulence, the deflation of which may have been unpleasant for some. But I reckon Deans will be well pleased with the work in progress that he has achieved.
As should all Australian fans.
Aljay said | November 30th 2009 @ 8:46am | Report comment
The way Robinson set up his outside man for the try was better than anything I’ve so far seen from AAC, Ioane or Cross.
Also, the commentators were an absolute pleasure to listen to compared to the local commentary teams we get for the Tir-nations or Super14. Can we have them commentate for the Wallabies all the time?
AC said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:28am | Report comment
Clarkie and Kafer weren’t bad at all in my opinion. Light years better than Kearns and Marto anyway.
Farmer said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:04am | Report comment
Surely, this has convinced Robbie Deans to shift Giteau to 12. Two of the 3 tries were from Giteau at 12 where he looked to have plenty of time to set up the move and provide space. He is able to use his speed and swerve to get through compared to the difficulty of less time and closer marking at 10.
Genia’s and Copper’s long , quick passes provided Giteau with the space he excels in. Compare this to earlier Tests with a slow and awkward ball from Burgess and Giteau trying to do something on his won from 10. Chalk and cheese.
I wonder if Dean’s decision to put Burgess on for the last 90 seconds was a farewell gift with Kingi lurking in the wings as the backup the next year.
The other highlight was the mobility shown by the front 3. Running like gazelles, they add heaps to the team across the park.
Sam Taulelei said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
Thank goodness the Wallabies didn’t have an end of tour fixture against the Barbarians this year and can go into summer on the back of a good win. Entertaining match to watch especially in the first half. Now to see if the Super 14 coaches can produce results, improve players further and play running rugby next year.
Rickety Knees said | November 30th 2009 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
“Now to see if the Super 14 coaches can produce results ” – for mine that is the $64 question and whether those dullards at the Waratahs can play running Rugby rather than low risk forcings back.
kevkom said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Great – on the back of one game the ever-(over)optimistic wallaby supporters will once again have this team starting next season as world-beaters.
Happens every year and is so funny to witness. Oh well – more bottles of red to be won next year backing the ABs in the Bledisloe.
sittingbison said | December 2nd 2009 @ 1:12am | Report comment
almost as funny as witnessing the ever-(over)optimistic all black supporters having their team as world cup favourites every four seasons hehe
MikeN said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:06am | Report comment
I think it was very interesting that the three southern hemisphere teams played 3 of the top northern hemisphere teams and the northern hemisphere teams did not score one try.
One highlight for me that has not been mentioned was Dean Mumm driving his man back 10m in the tackle. He did not just make the tackle but followed through and kept driving.
We need to get a top AFL kicking coach to help improve our kicking. I want less kicking but a better outcome when we do kick and for a country where punting a similar shaped ball is a fine art, I cannot believe how inept we are. We lose field position in every punting exchange with every opponent.
My Breakdown of positions for the match:
Front row A+ (special mention for Ben Robinson)
Second Row B
Back Row A (special mention open side flankers)
Halfback A
Midfield B+ (special mention Matt Giteau)
Wings B
Fullback B-
pothale said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:26am | Report comment
I think it’s very interesting that the performance of the SH teams this years contrasts sharply with last year.
NZ – won 4.
SA won one, lost two
Aus won 2, lost one and drew one.
Argentina won one, lost two
Ireland won 2, drew one
France won 2 lost one.
Wales won two lost two
Scotland, won two, lost one
Italy won one, lost two
England lost 3
Fiji lost 2
Samoa lost 2
In a points table, that reads:
NZ 16
Ireland 10
Australia 10
France 8
Wales 8
Scotland 8
Argentina 4
SA 4
Italy 4
Samoa 0
Fiji 0
England 0
Campbell Watts said | November 30th 2009 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
Potty,
How does the AB’s winning 4/4 and not having a try scored against them this year contrast sharply with:
The AB’s winning 4/4 and not having a try scored against them last year?
Do tell, I’m curious!
Colin N said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:21pm | Report comment
England won one, lost two.
Worlds Biggest said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:47am | Report comment
Agree with Robinson is MOM, he is turned into a class player and well supprted by his bookend mates. The scrum has turned the corner which is great, well done Pato Noriega. What a great game to watch although would have liked the backs to keep it hand in the 2nd half more. Masterclass performance by both Pocock and Smith. S Jones gave Welsh openside Martyn Williams a 7/10 which was laughable. He got schooled by both Aussie 7’s. Giteau needed that game to silence the critics, 12 is his go though. Q Cooper is developing well, he cut down Jamies Roberts several times so his defence is improving. I would like to see him attack the line more as he has a good offload. Ioane gives some grunt in attack and defence, he chops people down in defence. Genia is very impressive, how many highballs did he gather when covering ?. AAC still kicks it too much and should counter attack. Both wingers were OK but not setting the World on fire either. Mitchell is still flakey for my liking. Wales were missing troops and were a yard behind the pace however to belt them at home was a great effort. Some faith is restored in Deans and the Wallabies. If only they can become a consistent outfit.
ballboy said | November 30th 2009 @ 11:13am | Report comment
Good work Pothole – I was going to do something similar.
For the last three weeks certain individuals on this site have been tearing the Wallabies from limb to limb. Their consistentcy for some time now has been poor and they had a shocker against Scotland – although not enough credit was given to the Scot’s brusing defence that game.
Now, after the wash up of all the top nations playing each other we can clearly draw a few conclusions.
1. NH and SH rugby are a lot closer than some would like to believe – a good thing for the game.
2. NZ have been outstanding for the last 4 months and are by far the leading team in world rugby.
3. SA have imploded, taken their foot off the pedal, read too much of their own press
4. Australia is not in as dire straights as some would have us believe.
5. There could be as many as many as 4 teams NZ, SA, AUST, IRELAND) capable of winning the next world cup.
6. Giteau should be playing at 12
As far as Deans goes, that’s a different matter. I could not believe the first 10 minutes of the second half. I’ve saved the game to watch again so i can go back and count the number of kicks we booted senselessly down field, Cooper especially. the Wallabies were in front, had the Welsh on the back foot, had a perfect opportunity to run with the ball in hand and play some exciting rugby, but thought field position was again the tune on the song sheet. This had to have come from Deans. What’s he saying about our outside backs? What’s he saying about the forward’s ability to get to the ruck? The win at all costs mentality has not proved popular with the paying public and it’s high time he realises that Rugby is as much about entertainment as it is about winning. In fact, it is more about entertainment than winning. Give me a game that is fought on the ground, in the trenches or over the wide expanse of the field. If I want a kick-a-thon I’ll watch AFL or football.
Parisien said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:58pm | Report comment
Despite their loss to a very fine AB team, I would still include France in the list of potential winners in 2011!
Joh4Canberra said | December 1st 2009 @ 1:28am | Report comment
Moi aussi. France are also a possibility but a number of things have to happen between now and RWC 2011. I’m not saying they will happen — whether they do will be up to the French — but I wouldn’t write the French off just yet. The French have been moving in the right direction since Lièvremont took over. Of course the question is whether they continue to move in the right direction between now and RWC 2011. If so then I would add Les Bleus to the list of realistic contenders.
Dan said | November 30th 2009 @ 11:20am | Report comment
Gotta say, the second “offside” penalty given to the welsh off the kick off was a load of absolute rubbish. Innocuous incidents like that DO NOT DESERVE 3 points. Absolute rubbish.
bennalong said | November 30th 2009 @ 11:24am | Report comment
The psychology of sports fans is fascinating, eh.
IMO the problem for this team has been reforming at a time of great confusion about rules at the breakdown. Last nights game was no exception but the penalties were less telling.
Any GAME where, at every breakdown the ref has an option to penalise EITHER team, is in TROUBLE.
The NH has played a different game for two seasons where going off the feet has been vigorously policed. As KO will agree, this resulted in a better running game than in the SH where, under the ELV’s the refs seemed to let all sorts of things go so that offsides were allowed at the breakdown, as well as ’stacks on the mill’. Thus the intention of the ELV’s was subverted.
The AB’s game against France “worked” because both sides were allowed to infringe, bodies everywhere at the breakdown, but IMO advantaged the AB’s because they ALWAYS infringe repeatedly unless the ref has the balls to keep penalising . When this happens their foreward dominance looks pale by comparison. (This is a one-eyed view but it’s supportable. The French had been playing under the tighter rules)
These Wallabies have been repeatedly criticised for giving away stupid penalties but IMO the calls are 50:50 so often that the criticism lacks veracity. As their fragility grew the refs were more prepared to ping them. They were frequently bemused and/or exasperated,not emotions you want in a rugby player.
I don’t know where this leaves us, but I think we should bring back rucking
Dean Pantio said | November 30th 2009 @ 11:56am | Report comment
So according to Bennalong; the only country to “reform” it’s team for the Autumn Internationals was Australia. They were also the only team to play the current rules at the breakdown.
Somehow the “AB’s game against France “worked” because both sides were allowed to infringe” blah, blah, blah, because the referee, a mister A. Rolland from Ireland and his two touch judges Messrs G. Clancy (Ireland) and S. McDowell (Ireland) clearly are used to reffing the messy SH style of play, ohh wait…
And the crowning piece in this whine fest is: “These Wallabies have been repeatedly criticised for giving away stupid penalties but IMO the calls are 50:50 so often that the criticism lacks veracity”. Of course, they aren’t the architects of their own demise, the refs are biased against them! Reality check; the Wallabies played poorly more than they played well. The losses they had, as well as their wins, were deserved.
bennalong said | November 30th 2009 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
Dean,
I knew my comments would seem one eyed and I am Australian. But I think Richie McCaw is the best OS flanker in the world. Nevertheless he cheats, and he’s better at it than George who also cheats.
My point is the rules at the breakdown are so shite that players who don’t cheat get penalised, too. The AB’s have never played to the rules, they play to the ref ! It is still my contention that the AB’s got fouled up by the rule changes also.
Following this line of thought the Boks went to the high ball and thus opened the game up. They got more set plays out of it from penalties and scrums.
The breakdown is a penalty lottery. It’s abused and it’s moved rugby away from a game played on the feet.
Bruiser said | November 30th 2009 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
I am with you all the way on that Bennelong. I’ve also said it in previous postings that when we play the AB’s for example we are always looking to the Ref wanting help, rather than helping ourselves, because Ritchie will play the Ref to a tee. If they don’t ping him, then why wouldn’t you do it. We look like we are going to cry.
Dean Pantio said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:00am | Report comment
Bennalong, there isn’t an international player who doesn’t cheat. The break down isn’t a lottery if you enter from the gate, clear out players and stay on your feet.
ohtani's jacket said | November 30th 2009 @ 3:19pm | Report comment
Typical.
Rolland gives one of the best refereeing performances all year and some Aussie has to come along and make up fairytales. Bodies lying everywhere? What do they teach you people in Australia? Bring back rucking? If they brought back rucking, NZ would decimate the Wallabies. There wouldn’t be any Wallabies left to speak of.
It was an open game full of running rugby… y’know, that stuff Australians always whinge about. If Rolland let things go, then good! It’s about time refs got smarter about what they choose to penalise. If an infringement is having no immediate effect on the match then it’s not worth blowing up. As it was, the ruck contest had little bearing on the outcome which was a welcome respite from recent Tests.
I can’t understand why you bothered making these comments. Were you not satisfied enough with the Wallabies win?
bennalong said | November 30th 2009 @ 4:13pm | Report comment
The problems will continue.The breakdown is a lottery.
The attempt to address problems by bringing in the ELV’s was sunk before they could be properly appraised.
Where to now? Steady (not) as she goes? The All Blacks are back on top so all’s well in rugby land? The Wallabies won well so shut up?
I care about the game, that’s why I bothered……… Which should be bloody obvious!
The ups and downs we’re seeing are caused,at least in part, because the referee determines the direction each game takes.The rules change with the ref more than ever before.
ohtani's jacket said | November 30th 2009 @ 7:21pm | Report comment
It’s been a lottery for years.
The breakdown isn’t the real issue in rugby, it’s how teams decide to play against the defensive lines. The French were rushing up as usual in Marseilles and the All Blacks simply played the rush defence better than they have at any point under Henry & Co. The ref had very little influence on the game. The All Black backline played better than it has all season and made the French pay for creeping up. There wasn’t much pick-and-go from the All Blacks so the ruck contest hardly came into it. The French made a number of breaks thanks to their passing game and it was a fair contest.
The All Blacks hardly won the lottery. They didn’t piggy back the ref. There was plenty of hard work and preparation put into that performance and it showed what a team can do when they knuckle down. I’ve had enough of this bellyaching over the refs and the breakdown. Just play some rugby.
bennalong said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:57pm | Report comment
Alright, alright OJ, it was meanspirited not to acknowledge a great win………………..two great wins in fact
But what do you think was wrong with the team before, and how did they fix it?
Don’t give me this “Just play some rugby” BS. You’ve implied Roland had a hand in it.
I stand by what I said. The AB’s are back on top so all’s right with the world.
Get real ! The breakdown is an issue.
Until next time OJ
ohtani's jacket said | December 1st 2009 @ 5:55pm | Report comment
Earlier in the season, the All Blacks were getting picked off in front of the defensive line and driven backwards, leading to penalty situations. In Marseilles, the forwards kept driving in the tackle and we were able to get quicker ball. Instead of passing across the face of the defence, we were able to hit the gap and offload. I think they showed that you can avoid being isolated and reduce the ruck contest if you inject a bit of pace into your attack. They kicked less, kept the ball in hand and ran at the opposition line.
A lot of teams played defensively this year, either by spoiling opposition ball or forcing mistakes, and sides infringed a lot due to a lack of possession. You don’t need to get locked into this pattern so long as you play well. The All Blacks have been more confident of late because of their lineout and the return of Carter.
The refs need to start making more no-calls and let play develop. There’s no reason why they can’t issue warnings and bear in mind what they saw the defence doing. Most teams would rather keep the play alive than have it killed, and I firmly believe that if the ball is coming out on the right side then play should continue. I don’t think refs should call an infringement unless the ball’s been killed.
And every ref should make use of the scrum option like Rolland did. That was brilliant refereeing. No guessing, just a perfectly sensible restart. You don’t need ELVs if you use that option correctly.
Anyway, rugby needs more attacking play and a better balance between attack and defence and that starts with the coaching not the laws. So, if the Wallabies want to stop the All Blacks from controlling the rucks and mauls and slowing the game down, they need to work on their attack and not bemoan the refereeing.
ThelmaWrites said | November 30th 2009 @ 8:32pm | Report comment
I’ve played closer attention to the ruck during this (SH) Spring Tour/ (NH) Autumn Internationals. Australia have gone to the ruck much like their opposing teams, i.e., the arriving players stand on their feet or lean on the players who may be off their feet. Or if the bodies are all on the field, a Wallaby stands up so it is still a ruck and not general play (to protect the halfback as he is clearing the ball). Let me say that in another way: the Aussies have adopted the kinds of ruck that don’t get penalized in the Northern Hemisphere.
So by and large, there has been little killing the ball or diving. What has been penalized a lot was not releasing the ball (which is consistent with what I’ve watched before in the GP and HC matches), and coming from the side of the ruck.
There not having been many such infringements, the refs look impartial.The reffing looks great when, in fact, it’s because the teams have not been misbehaving
There have been instances of bodies on the ground but the ball is already on the way out so it’s pointless to penalize not staying on the feet.
In the France v New Zealand game which I’ve just watched (so it’s kinda fresh in my mind), A Rolland penalized the ABs in the 13th minute for diving and spoke to R McCaw. From then on the ABs desisted.
Also, the refs have “resuscitated” the practice of blowing the ball dead in the ruck if the ball isn’t forthcoming, and awarding the scrum to the team going forward.
I just hope the All Blacks continue this “best practice” in the rucks next year. They don’t need to infringe. My daughter (the All Black convert) has just rang to say how well the All Blacks played.
ThelmaWrites said | November 30th 2009 @ 8:36pm | Report comment
Dear Editors
This is the second time that my comment is still “awaiting moderation”.
I would be grateful if you would rectify this.
Sandy B said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:41pm | Report comment
I agree that Rolland had a cracker – Me and my kids were very impressed when he called the two captains over at about 70 minutes after the fight, and then spoke to them each in French and English for quite a lenghty conversation- very impressive man management – Allez Allez
Parisien said | November 30th 2009 @ 11:08pm | Report comment
Good and interesting point Sandy, I believe Rolland is the only international ref who really can speak French. I’ve heard Barnes use a few words too. Anyone else? French players and coaches have to learn English rugby expressions to understand the ref when it could also be the other way round. France after all have a long history as one of the top teams playing regularly. Could refs as part of their training learn just a few French and perhaps even Spanish and Italian expressions?
Joh4Canberra said | December 1st 2009 @ 2:58am | Report comment
The problem is that with the exception of France the majority of the top rugby nations have traditionally been English speaking. However, if rugby has any aspirations of becoming a truly global game then the use of language by referees is something that is going to have to change. It’s encouraging to see that the IRB website has the laws of the game available in English, French, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Spanish and Italian. If only we could see this same spirit adopted by referees on the field.
The expectation among English speaking referees has always been that the players from non-English speaking countries will understand enough English to understand what the referee is saying. To a large extent that’s a sensible practical approach, and to a large extent that’s reflective of a cultural attitude among native English speakers that other people will learn English (which in my view isn’t appropriate for international rugby).
As a practical matter I think this expectation is fair enough the most basic level. Any international player should be able to understand a few basic rugby terms in English such as “crouch, touch, pause, engage” for the scrum sequence, “hands off”, “release”, “offside/ stay back”. You don’t need to speak English fluently to be able to recognise a few basic commands/instructions from the referee. But the problem is that once you go beyond the basics, the use of English by the referee will favour one side over the other which isn’t fair. If one team has a language in common with the referee then they will have an advantage over their non-anglophone rivals. If the referee wants to tell the captains to get his team to stop doing something (so as to avoid future penalties/ cards etc) an English-speaking team has a distinctive advantage over a non-English speaking team. And that is not fair. And similarly, if the players have something they would like to raise with the referee via their captain then again the English speaking team has an advantage here. So for these reasons I think we need to be promoting linguistic ability among international referees — and not just to the point of saying things like «flexion, touchez, pause, entrez» instead of “crouch, touch, pause, engage” or «lachez» instead of “release” but also the ability to speak to the captains/players on an individual basis (as we saw Rolland do on Saturday).
This is where we come up against cultural hurdles to foreign language proficiency. Because so many people learn English as a foreign language most English speakers don’t really see the need to learn foreign languages. In most English speaking countries it is compulsory to study at least one foreign language at school but that doesn’t mean much in the scheme of things. I can tell you that most people drop languages as soon as they are allowed to and never go through with them to get to a decent level of proficiency.
I did French and German at school in Australia and speak both quite well but I would be in the minority in that regard. I’m also a referee and as well as controlling matches in English I would be quite happy controlling a match in either French or German and even talking to the players/captains on an individual basis in either of those languages (as we saw Rolland do on Saturday) but I’m never going to become an international referee and I don’t think someone should become an international referee simply because he’s good at languages. (I also speak some Dutch, Spanish and Korean but not as well as French or German and while I could give basic commands to the players in those languages I would not feel confident enough discussing a matter with a team captain in one of those languages.) What we need to be doing is encouraging international referees and those referees who have the potential to go on and become international referees to acquire foreign languages. The IRB needs to take the lead here in working with national unions to promote language ability among referees. Of course the question then arises: “which languages should referees speak?” Well obviously that’s going to depend on the situation. If Korea is playing Japan in a test match then Romanian is not really an appropriate language for the referee to use to speak to the players. In such a case the referee would ideally be able to speak both Korean an Japanese. And similarly if Germany is playing Romania then Chinese is not really an appropriate language for the referee to speak.
For referees wanting to referee the top tier nations then I think at they should all speak at least English and French and I would also encourage as many as possible to learn Spanish and Italian as well. Obviously you can’t have every referee speaking every language but I think we should have a pool of referees able to speak a variety of languages. And as an Australian I would say that if Australia is serious about promoting the game in Asia then we should be encouraging our referees to learn languages such as Japanese, Chinese and Korean.
One thing I would also like to see is the players from English speaking countries learning some of the basic rugby vocabulary in other languages and accepting being refereed in a foreign language. There is no reason why you couldn’t have a neutral referee controlling a game between France and an English-speaking country giving the basic commands in French to both sides with the players from the English speaking team being expected to understand the referee’s French. That is what French teams have to put up with in English most of the time. But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. English speaking players shouldn’t just assume the referee will speak their native language. I would love to see the day when the Wallabies front row packs down in a test match to the call of «flexion, touchez, pause, entrez»
Dublin Dave said | December 1st 2009 @ 5:06am | Report comment
I don’t think there’s any problem expecting international players to learn the basic vocabulary of referees commands such as “Hands off” “Roll away” ” Back foot” and “back ten please” in English. After all if the average music student can learn the meaning of Italian words and phrases such as “Fortissimo” “Adagio” and “Allegro ma non troppo” there should be no barrier to rugby having English as a comparable a lingua franca.
Where the ability to string together a few sentences in another language comes into its own is when the referee calls the captains together for a little chat. Obviously the more fluent he is in the players’ native languages the better, but at the end of the day, they know he’s only really saying “Stop hitting each other or I’ll have to bin somebody” so body language and tone of voice are his most important assets there.
Parisien said | December 1st 2009 @ 6:12am | Report comment
Good comments Joh and Dave. Thanks. I would just add that basic commands are one thing but when the ref tries to issue a warning or explain a decision it goes over the non-English speaking player’s head most of the time, especially if the ref has a strong regional accent! Barnes and Kaplan are two who speak clearly but I’ve heard Scottish, Welsh and Australian refs mumble with a strong accent and the player or captain clearly hasn’t understood a word. Also, the non- English speaking captain can’t get into the ref’s ear like a Gregan or MCaw. Since there is more chat than ever these days and room for subtle influence the more you command the language the more you may possibly have some kind of sway with the ref.
Or perhaps we should return to signals and no language as in football but good luck to the world in trying to understand some of the more complex decisions in rugby.
Joh4Canberra said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:42am | Report comment
Parisien: I think we’re agreed that while players should be able to understand basic instructions in English once you go beyond this the use of English will favour sides from English speaking countries over the others.
Regional accents themselves shouldn’t be a problem if the referee makes a point of clearly articulating his words and not speaking too quickly. What often gets me though is the referee’s choice of vocabulary. I’m both a native English speaker and a referee and sometimes even I’m not sure what some of the English-speaking referees in international matches mean. Sure, I hear the string of words and understand each single word but am sometimes left in two minds as to what he is trying to say by that particular combination of words. And even if his meaning is quite clear to me as a native English speaker there are still occasions where I am left thinking that a reasonably competent non-native speaker would have trouble understanding what the referee meant. If referees are going to use English with non-English speaking teams then in addition to speaking clearly they do really need to choose their words carefully, avoiding many colloquialisms (even rugby colloquialisms).
Dean Pantio said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:04am | Report comment
It is good, but English is the lingua franca of rugby.
sittingbison said | December 2nd 2009 @ 1:18am | Report comment
very droll
True Tah said | December 1st 2009 @ 5:21pm | Report comment
Maybe teach Mark Lawrence to understand Japanese
Who Needs Melon said | November 30th 2009 @ 11:36am | Report comment
Spiro,
Re: “The modern player tends to look to the coach to work out what the tactics should be. When things turn to custard on the field, they often don’t seem to be able to work out how to solve their problems”.
We’ve had other bemoan the fact that players have had too much power in the recent past. Has the pendulum swung to far? Or is there still ‘player power’ but it being used in the all the wrong contexts?
Who Needs Melon said | November 30th 2009 @ 11:50am | Report comment
As we have wallowed in recent defeats we should revel in this victory… but we must also not forget and not next year repeat the same mistakes we made this year.
Things to remember for next year:
Stick with Genia as our halfback. Unless Burgess has a blinder in the S14, try someone else.
1) Keep Noriega on the books and developing the scrum. Don’t rest on our laurels.
2) We need some more locks. And REAL work on our lineouts. Jim Williams to lift his game.
3) We need to work on our restarts. They’re not that hard!
4) We need to work on our kicking. Especially AAC. Critical, critical part of a fullbacks game.
5) Get whoever taped Larkham up before each match to do the same for Barnes.
6) Giteau can wear whatever number he likes on his back… as long as he plays 2nd receiver.
7) Beale, O’Connor and Cooper CAN play rugby. They need some more development… mainly ‘experiential’.
9) Pocock and Smith. One on at a time. It works.
10) Tell Cliffys mum to give him a rev up before EVERY game and keep him at 8.
Rickety Knees said | November 30th 2009 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
Great post Spiro – it is now over to the S14 coaches. Mitchell and Friend will do the right thing – whether Link and those dullards at the Tahs do so is a moot point.
Likewise WNM – Giteau has to play second receiver. Mitchell is not good enough – for everything he does right there is a corresponding howler. AAC needs to be smarter with his kicking game. Hynes is just OK.
The glass is half full.
rugbyskier said | November 30th 2009 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
I thought it was amusing to see one curmudgeon call another a curmudgeon. Spiro, we haven’t forgotten your ‘Brumbies fans = Milwall thugs’ spray a few years ago nor the way mild-mannered Rod Quinn skewered you in a follow-up interview on 2CN, getting you to admit that you’d never been to Bruce Stadium to see a match live.
Cotton McKnight said | November 30th 2009 @ 1:20pm | Report comment
It’s always about the Brumbies, isn’t it. Talk about parochial.
Brumbies fans are getting worse than Qld fans.
Brumbies first then Australia second.
Go_the_Wannabe's said | November 30th 2009 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
What a difference a game makes…….I wonder if everyone would be crowing about how the Wannabe’s have turned the corner if they’d lost to Wales 33 – 12?
It would be interesting to see the comments then! (Maybe someone should write a fantasy column around that scenario?)
But seriously, it was just the sort of spring tour you would expect from a young, relatively inexperienced side. Inconsistency has been there calling card from the shocker against Scotland to the surpise against Wales.
We can probably look forward to similar inconsistency next year with a few good wins and a couple of unexplainable losses before they really gel. You get that with a young team.
As I’ve said before, we will have to wait until the RWC before we make Deans a martyr or saint. Only time will tell!
(PS I’d like to be a fly on the wall when O’Neill hands out the report cards when they get back).
stillmissit said | November 30th 2009 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
Wallabies season is about a 6/10 in my book. Unless we can show that we can win big games away and put some consistency into our performances then 2011 is a pipe dream.
The basis of the success mixture is there but will the cake rise or fall?
Campbell Watts said | November 30th 2009 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
3 wins from 11 tests gives you 6/10?
You must be an accountant to come up with such interesting figures!
stillmissit said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:10am | Report comment
Campbell – you caught me out. Why is there always someone here who can count? It kills creative accounting.
BTW -there is nothing wrong with shuffling the numbers to suit, just ask Phil Jones the global warming ‘climategate’ guru about it.
Campbell Watts said | December 1st 2009 @ 5:12pm | Report comment
Nice one stillmissit!
Brett McKay said | November 30th 2009 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
Fair credit to Robbie Deans too, for engineering a turnaround of that proportion inside a week…
LeftArmSpinner said | November 30th 2009 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
As happy as I am to see the wallabies winning again, and winning well, this is nowhere near a complete performance. I fully agree with the Spiro that it is inexplicable and frankly downright stupid to change from the successful tactics of running the ball to unsuccessful tactics of kicking the ball.
Every elite sportsmen will tell you that once you have your prey on the run, you must go for the jugular. At game or set points, tennis players are coached to go for the shots as if it was the first point of the game.
Robbie Deans knows this as well as a any one. after all, he trained and played with the mighty all blacks who never give a sucker for an even break even if their own form is poor.
The wallabies team seems to either ignore or be incapable of implementing the coaches plans. I just don’t understand this nor can I therefore explain it. The only comment or observation I would make is that it seems to be very similar to that of the teenager, and specifically the traumatic year that is Year 9.
The behaviour is illogical, self damaging and ultimately flawed. I would love to hear the explanation from the players as to why they adopted these tactics. Of course, this is not going to happen.
Bruiser said | November 30th 2009 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
I was sitting their watching the first half thinking, i’ve got to go to bed, i’ve got to go to bed but couldn’t because i was enjoying the game so much (for a change). More importantly i was enjoying the fact that they had done away with the stupid aimless kicking which we always do poorly anyway and which invariably backfires. Its simply nice to watch. So i stayed up. Then came the 2nd half and after 10 mins i thought oh oh here they go again…so i went to bed. While thankful we won, i have to wonder as well why we would revert to this. Its simply boring.
stuff happens said | November 30th 2009 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
Thanks Spiro,a big well done to the Wallabies in the first half; to the magnificent All Blacks and to Ireland. All goes to show why I’m lucky not to be a betting man – I would have lost on all three games!
And thanks to Australia for reverting to their current formula in the second half, otherwise Wales may have been beaten by forty.
The French & the Springboks will be back soon.Don’t underestimate either, and these losses will help them as they move towards RWC’011. Wales – I’m not so sure.
buttery said | November 30th 2009 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
It is time the Union reduced the penalty goal to 2 points, the week before last the 4 Nations final between the Kanagaroos & England produced 11 tries in 80 minutes, 4 Union games in the Northern Hemishere produced 4 tries in 320 minutes, the Union boasted about the crowds at their games and compared them to the League, all I can say is I feel sorry for the Union spectators in that hemisphere, in Australia this year the Union crowds were down, so discourage the penalty & encourage the try as well get rid of those pedantic referees & blind linesmen.
ohtani's jacket said | November 30th 2009 @ 3:21pm | Report comment
The Four Nations final was rubbish. 11 tries in 80 minutes is rubbish. The only people who enjoy stuff like that are Australians.
Colin N said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:27pm | Report comment
“It is time the Union reduced the penalty goal to 2 points”
No they shouldn’t. It would just encourage more teams to ‘cheat’ at the breakdown and slow the ball down.
I say if you were going to do anything, it would be reduce the drop goal to one point. The French Top 14 has been plagued with it for the last couple of years and if you saw the game between New Zealand and France, Francois Trinh-Duc decided to go for a drop goal when they were 22-9 down at the time. Why? He also screwed up another oppourtunity earlier on in the half, although France should have been awarded a penalty for an All Black being offside in the move.
Bob McGregor said | November 30th 2009 @ 2:16pm | Report comment
WOW – what a transformation.
I have written over time and as recently as last week, that once the Wallabies started playing for the Jersy, Coach, their teammates and supporters – success would follow.
Readers will recall I’ve been very critical of the selfish ‘white line fever’ approach of most players in the immediate past who appeared to be playing for themselves rather than the team – at least until this match. Long term readers will recall – ad nauseum – why I have suggested well weighted sliding kicks should be used to break the defensive line inside the 22. How thrilled was I that Giteau executed such a kick to perfection for the first try. The second ACTUALLY saw Mitchell PASS to a player in a better position for the second try. Wow he is learning at long last. Pocock’s try followed great sustained pressure and sheer strength. We are indeed fortunate that our backrow is so strong. Pococks arms remind me of ‘Popeyes’ – massive!
In the second half Giteau made a beautiful break and passed inside for Polotta Nau, to dive and make the line. Sometimes in the past Giteau would have overplayed his hand and probably failed.
These facts must be ingrained into the Wallabies. It is the difference between success and failure.
As great as Giteau was, he has a hang up kicking from the left hand side of the field at posts. He needs a kicking coach immediately.
In summary, a near perfect first quarter followed by some waywardness before discovering what they did in the first 20. Defence was awesome and a majority played for the Team, Coach, Supporters and of course the Jersey.
Welcome back guys. Now lets see you reproduce that APPROACH regularly – and for 80 minutes.
I remain very positive going forward PROVIDED the lessons have been learnt.
Campbell Watts said | November 30th 2009 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
Pococks “popeye arms” don’t seem to help him link with the backs though.
Still think this is an area of his game that needs attention.
That said – he’s a fantastic player and will only improve with more experience.
Ben said | November 30th 2009 @ 4:44pm | Report comment
Pocock and Smith were awesome in tandem, as was Elsom.
Campbell Watts said | December 1st 2009 @ 5:15pm | Report comment
True! A great combo to have – better than Smith/Waugh I must say. Smith is a better off-the-bench man than waugh in that he’ll also cover No8
Dean Pantio said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:09am | Report comment
“I have written over time and as recently as last week, that once the Wallabies started playing for the Jersy, Coach, their teammates and supporters – success would follow.”
I’d suggest ever so humbly and respectfully you’re deluding yourself. Wales, decimated by injury, were incompetent in attack, no match for the Wallaby scrum and looked liked they really didn’t want to tackle.
The Wallabies put together a good, solid performance against a team that didn’t front up – much like their win against South Africa in Brisbane. I still think this team is soft and nothing I’ve seen during the NH tour has changed that belief.
Shahsan said | November 30th 2009 @ 3:41pm | Report comment
Has anyone ever seen Ashley Cooper pass the ball?
Ben said | November 30th 2009 @ 4:41pm | Report comment
nope
Parisien said | December 1st 2009 @ 6:14am | Report comment
I saw him pass once in the Wales game!
Shahsan said | December 1st 2009 @ 6:45am | Report comment
Huge missing piece in his game. Until he fixes it he’s not quite the real deal, is he?
sittingbison said | December 2nd 2009 @ 1:22am | Report comment
the 2006 wales game?
Working Class Rugger said | November 30th 2009 @ 5:21pm | Report comment
Just finished watching the replay of the game (choose not to on the weekend after Scotland but in hindsight should have) and although the first half was good the Wallabies still have alot to improve on. For about 30mins of the 1st we controlled the game completely and had a major influence on the other 10. In the 2nd half at least the forst 20mins we reverted back to kicking. Couldn’t believe it. After runniong in 3 very good tries in the first half they resorted back to a gameplan they cannot execute. Fortunately they snapped out of it somewhat and really weren’t to bothered by anything the Welsh could offer.
Giteau playede well. I panned in leading up to the game but as someone stated he played quite alot from 2nd reciever which suits him as opposed 5/8. So I’m glad to proven wrong. Ioane had a good good with an excellent finish for the 1st try. Pocock was awesome as was Smith (Pocock A+, Smith A). Good turn around but still alot more work yet to be done. I suspect the inconsistency will continue hopefully to a lesser degree next season. But 2011 could be a good year.
Rockin Rod said | November 30th 2009 @ 6:46pm | Report comment
Find of the tour
It has to go to POCOCK.
Played sensationally in beaten side in tokyo, official MOM when to Fatcat but alot of websites gave it to POCOCK
Rested against England.( on the bench )
MOM against Ireland
Rested against Scotland
The 40 minutes he played against Wales was just amazing.Catching high balls, turnovers, scoring tries and dominant tackles. I am a massive George Smith fan but i can now admit this POCOCK will be our number 1 openside for many years to come. He is the future of Australian Rugby and his character seems faultless. Future captain for sure, which hopefully will put us in good step with the refs like what Richie Mcaw gets away with at the breakdown cause he has the C next to his name.
Genia had a great tour and so did Quade Cooper
RWC 2011, we are on track
Dean Pantio said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:20am | Report comment
Pocock was schooled by the best open side in the world in Tokyo (the man-of-the-match award winner). As it stands the Wallabies don’t have a traditional backrower combining with the backs (8 & 7). It’s left to Elsom who is playing blindside.
Just because you have C next to your name doesn’t mean anything in combating McCaw’s brilliance – it didn’t help Smith did it?
Campbell Watts said | December 1st 2009 @ 5:20pm | Report comment
Agree Dean,
As good as the Wallabies back row are they don’t ever seem to be the 1st man there to support line breaks – which as shown in the Scotland game can come home to bite you!
Expect that will improve with Pocock next S14 season – I can’t see Mitch missing the importance of your No7 linking with the backline! I’d say it’s the only week point to his game at present.
Peter K said | November 30th 2009 @ 6:49pm | Report comment
I good result and gives time to contemplate the review for next year.
Changes I would be looking at to improve the team would be
starting Polotua Nau, and Moore on the bench
Fix the lineout, start Harrison as lineout general, and other lock, the hardman, be between Kimlin and Horwill.
Pocock be kept as starting 7.
10 to be between Barnes and Cooper, Barnes is brittle though and gets hurt soaping himself in the shower
Giteau to 12, regardless of number on his back
Mortlock to 13 , give him a go back from injury.
Ioanne to 11, Hynes to 14, Mitchell out.
This would be the initial plan but accepting changes as the year pans out in S14, i.e. Robert Horne may get starting 13 etc.
Rockin Rod said | November 30th 2009 @ 7:13pm | Report comment
Peter
You have raised some interesting selections for next year but shouldnt we be building for 2011.
Harrison will be about 37 in 2011 and Mortlock may well be playing in Japan in 2011?????
Dean Pantio said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment
“but shouldnt we be building for 2011″ You’re in the wrong section. This is rugby, what you’re looking for is Association Football. Their World Cup is in 2010.
ballboy said | November 30th 2009 @ 7:20pm | Report comment
I agree that Mitchell should go. He’s not a threat to anyone. Hynes is better but the wingers are our weakest link at the moment. let’s hope the S14 can either improve the current crops positional play as well as their attacking flair or we find some new blood.
Peter K said | November 30th 2009 @ 8:22pm | Report comment
Rockin Rod – Harrison would be passing on great skills that are much needed to Horwill and Kimlin. I would prefer we get Vickerman back but that is not likely to happen. Btter option than Sharpe for another year.
Mortlock may or may not last since he is having a lot of injuires. I just think Ioanne is a better option at wing. For 13’s that really leaves Horne. I would rather have Horne at 13 and Ioanne at 11 than Ioanne at 13 and Mitchell at 11.
I forgot Shepherd, if he receovers his pace, at 15 is a good option as well. This means AAC could be at 13 and Ioanne at 11.
OldManEmu said | November 30th 2009 @ 8:38pm | Report comment
Is anybody able say what is the record for a Wales team with the most surnames that are the same?
I would punt on Jones being the most common surname but then again would not rule out Williams neither.
Having never been to the UK I speak from a position in which I am supremely comfortable, i.e complete ignorance, but would it be unfair to compare the Valleys of Wales to the mountains of Tumbarumba when it comes to a limited gene pool.:)
Stephen F. Moon said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:30pm | Report comment
well well well, Rocking Rod harping on about POCOCK again. We all know how well he played Rod, think you are taking it a bit far by suggesting his “character is faultless”. Give it a break mate.
Harry said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:39pm | Report comment
Talking finds of the tour, can I just put big rap in for Ben Alexander, who has done a remarkedly good job to establish himself as a test class tighthead in half a season. He and whoever coaches him deserves great credit.
I thought it would be one of our weak positions (along with 2nd row, 12 and the wings) but was wrong. Excellent!
Parisien said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:48pm | Report comment
I agree, Alexander was always going to be a work in progress but has improved a lot, and will hopefully keep improving for the next five years. Front row looking good in scrums, in tight, but very mobile as well. After Scotland they must have decided if the backs can’t get across, we’ll pass the ball, run, and show them how its done. Seriously, they linked very well. The second row still has issues but Mumm went well and Horwill better than lately. They need to continue working hard and improving. Sharpe still needs to be kept around for lineout experience and leadership and to play a mentor role. It really is good to see a strong scrum after so many years of it being weak, and surprising to see the backline still uncertain.
Genia really looks the goods but its early days. Another super 14 season will do him wonders. Pleasing to see Giteau have a good match and show off his talent again.Still question marks over the back three and the backline’s collective smarts.
And as for the worrying return to kicking in the second half, the big question, was Deans behind it, or have the players lost their instincts, or is that now their instinct as pointed out by someone earlier, to kick when under pressure or in doubt? the should have stuck to what was working in the first half and gone for the jugular All Blacks style.
Great to finish the season on a high note but many questions remain and won’t be answered until the next tri-nations.
Still, but for three points, there would have been a grand slam! (said somewhat tongue in cheek). Aah, if only Giteau had made just one of those missed kicks against Ireland and Scotland…Perhaps its better this way for the development of the team.
rugbyguy said | November 30th 2009 @ 11:34pm | Report comment
YOU ARE DREAMING!!!
South africa are always a threat but i cant see the current springbok side still being at their peak in 2011.
the All Blacks have peaked 2 years early the last couple of world cups but seem to have the timing better this time with a young side who have only just began to find their feet.
Australia have a young side full of raw talent and a coach with a knack for turning talent into world class players,andrew merthans , both maugers, richie mccaw, dan carter all developed under Deans at the crusaders among others
Will Genia looks the Business, give him a couple of years and he could be the top halfback around, Giteau is genius on a good day and will only grow in consistancy and skill under Deans, rocky elsom is a freak he could be as good as mccaw he just does’t know it yet.
France ?? i dont think so
sure france have their good days but can they win a few tough games in a row ? possible but unlikely
england won the world cup once, jonny wilkonsonn kicked the ball and big ugly forwards got jonny the ball back so he could kick drop goals – it worked but england wont stop trying to re-live it. do they really expect jonny boy to be up to scratch in 2011 ? seriously? and do any englishmen actally play club rugby in england, they seem to prefer offering a retirement scheme to ex-all blacks and springboks than developing english talent, fair enough i suppose
ireland are good as are wales but both have a way to go to be genuine contenders, O’driscol is old
the all black will be the team to beat, they are the best at the moment and a long way from peaking, they have suffered upsets at previous world cups they were favoured to win but at home they will be very hard to upset.
True Tah said | December 1st 2009 @ 5:23pm | Report comment
you’ve probably been saying the same argument in 1997, 2001 and 2005.
jools-usa said | December 1st 2009 @ 5:22am | Report comment
Was worried when they started the kicking nonsense in 2nd half, but positives were:
Cool under high kicks
Crisp passes – even in midst of broken play.
Knowing where the suppport was.
Stealing ball – Pocock, Smith.
Finding touch….mainly!
Solid defense.
All in all not a bad underpinning for months ahead.
Jool-USA
Parisien said | December 1st 2009 @ 6:51am | Report comment
But I’m not denying the injuries or their impact at all – all the more reason for Australia to win well as they did! And I meant that Williams and Byrne were greater losses IMO than Shanklin.
Equally a rusty Irish team clearly out of sorts for 60 minutes and playing some pretty stupid rugby(not sure how many players they did or didn’t have injured) should have and could have been beaten with a bit more composure and lucidity, and the opportunities were clearly there to beat Scotland too (again injuries or not). A ruthless Australian team would not have allowed an out of sorts Irish team the chance to claw their way back in the last minutes of the game, champion Irish team or not. The game was there for the taking and the Wallabies despite dominating, blew it. Before the tour began, I thought Australia would win two and lose two, and would have happily settled for a draw with Ireland but in the end when I saw the state of the opposition teams I realised that a Grand Slam was not such an impossible dream after all. As another poster, Sam T said, the Wallabies made a hash of their grand slam attempt, and I think this was apparent to everyone watching. I thought they’d beat England but didn’t expect them to go so well against either Wales or Ireland in the end, and certainly didn’t expect them to go so poorly against Scotland.
Putting injuries aside, its the underlying structures, team and player depth, preparation, coaching and match strategies that are more indicative of a team’s true standing. And it will show in their results over a series of games. How are the set pieces going, the backline moves, the playing as a team, the collective nous, the composure? The All Blacks have had their problems too this season but in the end showed their underlying class. The Wallabies aren’t there yet, are very much a work in progress, but there were positives even in the losses, and I do feel more hopeful about them then I did a few weeks ago.
As Pothale revealed with his points chart, the teams that are perhaps looking up at the moment after all the November matches are New Zealand, Ireland, France and Australia. The rest would be a little uneasy, but at least South Africa can say it achieved its major goals for the year, and Scotland got a major scalp and ended a 27 year old losing record. I think England, Wales and Argentina all have reason for concern.
fox said | December 1st 2009 @ 7:31am | Report comment
Not catching the game live, I returned home from NZ yesterday and watched the recorded game – I managed to avoid being told or reading about the result. First half was magnificant. Second half I mostly watched in 2x speed, as I was bored by the lead-defending kicking tactic – yawn! If we adopt that strategy against the AB’s we’d lose a 20 point lead. So why practice it?!
A few revelations that came out of the match (apart from the obvious fact that Wales were poor and understrength):
1. Pocock has become a world class openside flanker on this tour.
2. Genia could be a world class fullback as well as the world class scrum half he already is – how good is he under the high ball, on the counter attack and kicking back those high balls – and chasing?! O’Connor and AAC ought to watch the replay of his work in those areas.
3. Deans’ most obvious selection failure on this tour: playing Chisolm instead of Mumm.
4. TPN is a try scoring magnet.
5. Giteau (as I have said since he was first flagged as a fly-half) is a much better 12 than 10 where he is allowed freedom, space and the ability to take on defenders through a variety of channels and in a variety of different situations.
6. Quade Cooper CAN tackle!
7. The Wallaby scum might just have climbed above the All Blacks pack as the world’s best. If not, then they are very close.
8. Benn Robinson has been man of the match in just about every international he’s played in this year – he was Australian Player of the Year by a mile, if only his team mates had looked up from their navels and Giteau worshiping to see it and declare it so! He, along with a fast developing Ben Alexander, have almost saved Wallaby rugby on their own!
9. Palu has, and will always be, the first choice No. 8. It’s just good to see him finally playing consistently and believing it.
10. Rocky Elsom, while a fearless leader of men, needs to work on his passing! He is an horrendous passer of the ball. How many tries will he bomb single-muddled-handedly! Was he those silly wearing gloves again? I forgot to take note.
11. Kurtley Beale may be next season’s first choice winger – playing the sort of Shane Williams role for the Wallabies that Spiro keeps raving about as the correct position for Giteau (and which I disagree with – he’s a 12).
That is all, hombres.
Mungehead said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:45am | Report comment
7. The Wallaby scum might just have climbed above the All Blacks pack as the world’s best. If not, then they are very close.
Hrm, I would have thought the ABs scrum was quite a way from the world’s best at the moment.
fox said | December 1st 2009 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Perhaps right now, but it’s pretty much consistently been the best most years in my living memory.
Dean Pantio said | December 1st 2009 @ 9:20am | Report comment
Not so. After being schooled by an excellent English pack in 2003, New Zealand invested heavily in the training of their forwards in the scrum. This paid dividends in 2004-2007, although having a front row of Woodcock, Oliver and Hayman certainly doesn’t hurt. This year they have not been anywhere near as dominant. Australia are definitely reaping the benefits of serious attention to the scrum and a decent front row (having got rid of the scrum bunny Baxter).
I’d suggest that if the current Wallabies scrum isn’t the best in the world right now, they’re certainly not far from it.
Justin said | December 1st 2009 @ 9:19am | Report comment
Agree with much of that but Mumm was hardly a standout. The tackle he made and drove the Weslsh guy back had as much to do with Elsom as Mumm. I was watching closely at ruck time and he didnt get up from too many. Always seems to find a spot further out. Cant recall much ball running either.
For mine he is soft and needs to pick up his work rate and aggression. Give me Caldwell, Sharpe or Kimlin any day…
Dean Pantio said | December 1st 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
I agree with you Justin. Mumm goes awol in matches and in my humble, educated opinion, has a weak spine. He’s terribly lazy with an aversion to doping the hard work a lock is built for. It says a lot that you’d replace him with another shirker in Sharpe.
Justin said | December 1st 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
Well Sharpe is a much better LO forward for one and at least has some size about him. I think it showed on tour how poor the LO got without him there.
Dean Pantio said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:20am | Report comment
Definitely – this is one area where Sharpe is an asset to the Wallabies; his work in the lineout.
fox said | December 1st 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
The lineout was better. I would argue that, while the Welsh lineout isn’t world class, having Mumm in there aided the lineout, which had previously been struggling, rather than hindered it. It is with that in mind that I have queried Deans’s selection decision, or rather why he left it so long to realise Chisolm wasn’t helping our lineout, or doing all that much around the park either to cover up that deficiency.
Campbell Watts said | December 1st 2009 @ 5:35pm | Report comment
You want a lock with grunt and a huge ticker??
You cant go past Brad Thorn – at half time against the French he had just ticked up 1000 minutes of test rugby for the year!!!!
I think he’ll still have it in him come the world cup!
Shahsan said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:11pm | Report comment
Except he’s really not that good. Good man to have in the pack but technically not that good a lock forward. If only he were bit younger and more mobile — could have been a good no 6.
fox said | December 1st 2009 @ 7:39am | Report comment
ps – Referee, Wayne Barnes’s performance ought to warrant a mention. I never thought I would praise a referee – especially Wayne! – but he controlled the game fantastically, without a stranglehold, with great communication and consistency and allowed the game to flow. He can communicate without sounding like a complete obnoxious prat like Kaplan and yo can see the players react well to this, are less prone to frustration and enjoy the game more, which makes for a better game both to play and as a spectacle. He was particularly good in his interpretations at the scrum.
rugbyskier said | December 1st 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
I agree, I thought Barnes refereed the game well and it was a better match for it. A good example of how the ref can influence the flow and tempo of a match by being pragmatic rather than pedantic.
stillmissit said | December 1st 2009 @ 10:41am | Report comment
I think Barnes started out very well but he started to lose it in the second 20 and then picked it up in the second half. At least we could understand what he was calling. He is showing some real promise after the disaster of the AB semi final.
The big problem is with the touch judges, they have not made the jump to assistants. They miss too much offside and forward passes yet seem to call marginal tackles with great alacrity and always miss eye gouges and dirty play in the breakdown. If we want to use technology to assist our game why dont we make it easy and put a series of lines across the field so that these dunderheads can see clearly who is offside or who passed forward.
johnny-boy said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:47am | Report comment
Reality check – I agree Wales were weak in 1st half and suffering from losing captain and star winger – almost as weak as France vs All Blacks. You can always count on Frances other team turning up – or not. France blew themselves up in the 1st scrum. Deans appears to still be encouraging the Wallabies to employ the bungy jumping NZ pushing it to the absolute limit of the laws approach and the Wallabies are consequently still giving away too many silly penalties. They have nothing of the cold hard ruthless discipline of say the Eales teams, which ground many All Black teams in to the turf while the All Blacks were foolishly still pushing the laws to the limit at the wrong time.
Darwin hammer said | December 1st 2009 @ 11:01am | Report comment
“I agree Wales were weak in 1st half and suffering from losing captain and star winger – almost as weak as France vs All Blacks”
the only realty check needed is your incessant need to try and run down NZ performances – credit where credit is due – neither Wales or Aust from last weekend could have lived with either France or the AB’s
rugbyguy said | December 1st 2009 @ 11:00am | Report comment
wales were weak in the 1st half?
what about the 2nd half is that what u call good?
johnny-boy said | December 1st 2009 @ 11:52am | Report comment
Rugby guy – at least they had a go – which is more than can be said for the Wallabies.
Darwin Hammer – I don’t incessantly run down NZ performances – only their coaches. I was as die-hard an All Black supporter for 40 years + that you would ever find – fanatical, one-eyed uncompromising defender of the darkness – until Henry & Co came along and betrayed the country and NZ manhood. I just couldn’t stomach supporting a team with these low lifes as coaches. I think you’ll find there are quite a few ex legendary All Blacks who can’t stomach Henry & Co as well so I feel I’m in well informed company. How about you ?
Darwin hammer said | December 1st 2009 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
Well more fool you – I think if anything has been shown over the last 2 years is that the NZRFU made a well informed decision by retaining the current coaching set up and not continuing down the same path which has consistently failed – Deans has shown that he’s all a sea in the international arena and I don’t think he’d have had better performances than the current set up
Henry is and has been a very successful coach and I’m more than happy to have him charge up to 2011 and the current set up have shown they’re the preeminent coaching set up in world rugby at the moment … they certainly haven’t betrayed the country – each to their own JB – but there’s no way I’d switch country alligence based on the fact that my favourite didn’t get a job
ohtani's jacket said | December 1st 2009 @ 6:07pm | Report comment
What is it about the low lifes that you don’t like specifically?
johnny-boy said | December 1st 2009 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
DH – I’ve also been living in OZ for 27 years – am an OZ citizen, my wife and children are OZ – so it wasnt the only reason
.
If Henry & Co win the World Cup I might begrudgingly accept you’re right. I would say the Sprinboks had it all over the All Blacks this year actually so can’t see how this makes Henry & Co pre-eminent coaching set up ?. Did you miss it ?
Who knows how Deans woud have went with All Blacks. His record to date with Wallabies would indicate …. not very well although he does seem very good at teaching a style that suits Kiwis.
rugbyguy said | December 1st 2009 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
as a coach i have no problem with Henry and Co.
the whole rotation debacle was blown out of proportion if you ask me,
back in the 2003 world cup nz were favourites until we had a couple of key injurys and ended up
with playing rookies in big games, which most agreed cost us a place in the final.
in 2007 the All Black coaches sought to over come this by developing depth in every position, they essentially had two teams which they heavily rotated each week. semi final time against france and most of NZ rugby fans were already looking to the final, we feilded a close to second string team so our top player would be fresh for the final.
France actually turned up for once and put in an inspired performance to knock the All Blacks out of the world cup.
true to form france went on to play poorly and lose the final in a bit of an anti-climax.
Of course the blame fell squarely on Henry and the knives came out,
When the All Black coach job was re-assigned Henry was the best candidate, Robbie Deans was as i understand it unwilling to work as part of the coaching team and so Henry was reappointed.
his record is pretty good and he has had an uphill battle having to rebuild his team after an exodus of player to europe chasing $$$, he has had to rebuild while remaining competative. i think hes done a good job and i cant think of anyone better to take over. personally i dont know him so i couldn’t say, he seems like a grumpy old man but who knows how much of that persona is put on for the media, he used to be a headmaster so he probably is a grumpy old man.
I like that Henry has been willing to experiment a little with combinations,
he seems willing to bring in specialist coaches and try new training techniques, they have a “scrum docter” mike cron, and have brought in AFL coaches to advise in taking the high ball, anything for that edge is good,
I dont like how Rokoko kept his spot long after his form had dived, i like the loyalty but WINGs SHOULD BE PICKED ON CURRENT FORM !!. we had so many outstanding wings on fire all year and Rokoko was rubbish.
Mungehead said | December 2nd 2009 @ 4:29am | Report comment
Excellent post rugbyguy. And I completely agree that Rokocoko should have been dropped ages ago.
Brian Mills said | December 1st 2009 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
The Wannabies beat one crappy NH team and you now start claiming they’re in with a shot for the World Cup? You’re a complete twat Spiros.
Shahsan said | December 1st 2009 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
You don’t understand debate, do you? How old are you? Four? Or is that your IQ?
CliffyTahTah said | December 1st 2009 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
We firstly beat 2 crappy NH teams and drew with the current 6 nation champions..secondly, I think Spiro is reffering to the teams performance rather than the score line. We outplayed Wales in every area of the game, including the lineout. We have buckled every scrum that has come in our path (maybe on par with the AB’s) and the backline seems to be finally clicking. Out of all the teams in the top 10, the Wallabies are currently placed best wtih chances of winning the world cup
Dean Pantio said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:14am | Report comment
Hang on – where does this nonsense in your last sentence come from?
CliffyTahTah said | December 2nd 2009 @ 11:35am | Report comment
Wallabies will be peaking at the right time to take the WC.
Dean Pantio said | December 2nd 2009 @ 10:03pm | Report comment
And no other team will be?
On what basis do you make the claim this rag tag bunch will be the best team? Certainly can’t be the way in which they’ve improved from last year.
rugbyguy said | December 1st 2009 @ 5:37pm | Report comment
brian mills you are a dumbass, the world cup is in 2011, the wallabies recent results are irrelevent.
The reason we are saying the wallabies look good for the world cup is that their team is young and raw, at the moment they are average but with two years of internatioal rugby under their belts they will be very good,
wales and ireland are mediocre and their best current player will need walking frames by 2011, same goes for south africa to a lesser extent as they have some young talent on the rise.brian mills you are a dumbass
johnny-boy said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:28pm | Report comment
Re low lifes – where do start. I’d just be repeating myself. Another day maybe. However, I will say Henry & Co will be carrying so much bad karma in to the next World Cup – it would be un-natural for them to win it. But stranger things have happened.
stillmissit said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:16am | Report comment
Ohtanis Jacket – ‘Anyway, rugby needs more attacking play and a better balance between attack and defence and that starts with the coaching not the laws.” this is very true and I thought the whole of this reply was right on the money.
This ideas in your reply is worth a thread – why don’t you write it??????
conrad Rines said | December 3rd 2009 @ 9:42pm | Report comment
2011 world cup wallabies
a little different but will go very well i think!
1. alexander
2. polota nau
3 robinson
4 hand
5 vickerman
6 elsom
7 smith
8 palu
9 holmes
10 barnes
11 turner
12 mortlock/horne
13 ioane
14 morahan
15 shepard
* would consider cooper or oconner for a utility bench spot along with either horne or mortlock
* hand is a late bloomer with a wealth of experience and and is considered by micheal foley as a top lineout general.
thoughts?