June 2010 Tests should be all about RWC 2011
By Spiro Zavos, 10 Jun 2010 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Wallabies news
- Tri Nations Tournament news
- International Rugby Union - Six Nations, Heineken Cup, Rugby Championship news
- 2011 Wallabies squad news
The rugby writer for the UK Telegraph, Mick Cleary, was critical of England’s play against the Australian Babarian, and rightly so. He concluded that Australia should be able to defeat the England side if it cannot lift its game on Saturday night.
“There were worrying signs in England’s game throughout,” Cleary reported. The backs showed “their inability to attack with either fluency or potency.”
One of the reasons, in my opinion, is that England’s backs alignment is all wrong.
For years now, the number 10 has been standing so deep it is almost impossible for England to get over the advantage line from back attacks.
England do have a flat line when they are running their tubby props and hookers at the defensive line. This proved to be successful against the Barbarians, but it hardly a recipe for scoring tries against strong defensive teams.
Why the highly paid England coaches haven’t worked out that, when running the ball, the number 10 has to be flatter, is beyond me. Cleary pointed out that the attack was “stodgy and mind-numbing.”
It has been like this ever since Sir Clive Woodward was retired. Someone like Mark Ella could fix it up in a couple of hours.
Which raises the question: “How can the RFU justify the present coaching staff holding their positions when the play and performances of England has been so woeful in the last couple of years?”
Cleary was estatic over the performance of James O’Connor.
He noted that England “were almost beaten single-handedly by a teenager.” He did not mention the play of Berrick Barnes, but this might have been out of kindness.
Barnes has not adjusted to the new interpretations of the ruck, which encourage sides to hold on to the ball. Barnes kicked away too much good Barbarian ball to the extent that he brought England back into the game.
With the shaky Barbarian scrum being trounced by England, it became a close run thing at the end to save the draw.
Scrum-time is going to be the Wallabies weak area in the Test against England. Hopefully the front row can hold up enough to provide some sort of a platform for the backs.
One of the features of the play against Fiji was the way only six kicks were made by the Wallabies in the first half. Robbie Deans has clearly got the message through to his players (but not apparently to Barnes) that possession should not be kicked away to the opposition.
Fiji’s rush defence, too, was exposed with some clever inside passes from Quade Cooper.
In this context, the comment before the Test against South Africa by Marc Lievremont, France’s coach, is interesting: “Our plan is to play complete rugby, not just kicking up-and-unders.”
France is always a likely team on their day because from time to time they play the complete rugby game that even the best defensive sides cannot cope with.
Last year they defeated the All Blacks in New Zealand, something that is rarely done by European teams. You’d be a fool to suggest that they cannot do the same thing to the Springboks, depending on what French side turns up on the day.
You’d have to think that the next European team to win the Rugby World Cup, whenever that might be (2011 perhaps), will be France, for they are the only European side that seems to have the players in the forwards and backs to play ‘complete rugby.’
The Springboks coach Peter de Villiers is right to point out that this Test will be his toughest (they play Italy next) before the Tri Nations.
The Springboks will be without Fourie du Preez, who is having an operation on his shoulder. But this is another formidable team, the best in the world right now, and surely the favourites to win the 2011 RWC.
The main point about this splendid side is that, like the Bulls, they have the composure and the game to come from behind and win.
This ability to win, even though as against Wales last week they were well behind early on, marks the Springboks as an outstandingly mature side. But is the side too mature?
Getting the most senior players through what will be another two years of Test rugby is the challenge that is before de Villiers.
Ireland have gone for experience over younger talent in their bid to record a Test victory against the All Blacks.
Yarrow Stadium in New Plymouth is likely to be boggy, so this explains why, say, Ronan O’Gara has been selected ahead of Johnny Sexton.
The backline is full of old hands.
In the forwards, the Conacht duo of John Muldoon and Sean Cronin get a run because of injuries to established players.
Ireland clearly see Saturday’s match as their best chance in some time of defeating the All Blacks. They have given the task to their old faithfuls for one last hurrah before turning some of them, especially in the forwards, out to pasture.
Ireland right now is essentially the same side that bowed out of the 2007 RWC so tamely.
The All Blacks, like the Wallabies, are using these June Tests to bring on young players who could be useful next season.
In the case of the Wallabies, especially in the frontrow, with all the injuries being sustained, blooding new players is a necessity. The same applies to the All Blacks, who have five starters out with injuries.
But Henry has gone for quality and character in naming their replacements. Benson Stanley, for instance, completed a degree in commerce before starting his professional rugby career.
The Franks brothers will be long term All Blacks, as will Israel Dagg and Aaron Cruden.
They are being given a chance now, rather than next year because Graham Henry knows that there won’t be time in 2011 to blood new players.
The Springboks showed before their victory in RWC 2007 that you sometimes have to risk losing Tests with young players to develop a side balanced between old hands and newish talent that will win the RWC trophy.
The three Southern Hemisphere teams and France are doing this, looking towards 2011. But Ireland and England are sticking with their older players, looking no further than 2010.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.


pothale said | June 10th 2010 @ 6:24am | Report comment
“They have given the task to their old faithfuls for one last hurrah before turning some of them, especially in the forwards, out to pasture. Ireland right now is essentially the same side that bowed out of the 2007 RWC so tamely.”
Hmmmm. Let’s check the facts. I count 18 players from the 2007 WC squad are not on this tour – 13 are. Even the coach has changed.
2007 (18)
N. Best – Gone
R. Best – Injured
S. Best – Gone
Boss – Gone
Carney – Gone
Dempsey – Gone
Easterby – Gone
Ferris – Injured
Flannery – Injured
Hickie – Gone
Horgan – Injured
Leamy – Injured
O’Connell – Injured
O’Kelly – Retired
Quinlan – Gone
Sheahan – Retired
Stringer – Gone
Young – Gone
Coach: O’Sullivan – Gone
2010 (13)
Buckley – On tour
D’Arcy – On tour
Duffy – On tour
Hayes – On tour
Horan – On tour
Murphy – On tour
O’Driscoll (c) – On tour
O’Gara – On tour
O’Callaghan – On tour
Reddan – On tour
Trimble – On tour
D. Wallace – On tour
P. Wallace- On tour
Of the Team starting on Saturday against NZ – 8 of the players did not play/tour in the WC. Include the bench with Tuohy, Sexton, Fogarty and Jennings and that makes 14 of the Matchday 22 who were not in the 2007 touring side.
Kearney – not in WC
Trimble – playing only because Earls and Fitzgerald are both injured – neither were in WC
Darcy – was in WC
O’Driscoll – was in WC
Bowe – not in WC
O’Gara – was in WC
O’Leary – not in WC
Heaslip – not in WC
Wallace was in WC
Muldoon – not in WC
O’Callaghan – was in WC
M O’Driscoll – not in WC
Hayes – was in WC
Cronin – not in WC
Healy – not in WC
Viscount Crouchback said | June 10th 2010 @ 6:47am | Report comment
You make a fair point about the English backs. There are a few people in English rugby – Austin Healy and Brendan Venter among them – who cannot believe that Brian Smith (an Aussie, incidentally) is still in a job.
kingplaymaker said | June 10th 2010 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
Viscount Smith is exactly the person who should be in a job, but the job of head coach\manager in place of the real problem: Johnson. None of Smith’s previous sides played such dire, formless attacking rugby or choose such lumbering, talentless players. Johnson is behind the warping of the team’s play and is ruining everything.
Billo Boy said | June 10th 2010 @ 7:05am | Report comment
Spiro I must disagree.
The reason the Wallabies brand is suffering is because between each world cup we go through this purging and then re-building process.
If the internationals between each world cup are just preparation for the next world cup then we can’t expect the wider public to take each international match as a separate important game.
Putting aside the scale of league’s internationals, they have the principal right. You don’t see them use one Origin series as the chance to blood players for the next year’s Origin series.
The here and the now is what matters and is what creates a buzz to sell tickets and television ratings.
Penfold said | June 10th 2010 @ 2:44pm | Report comment
BB, Before Dean’s we had a pretty consistent team for the past two world cups. The problem was that they just weren’t up to the task. Not surprising because England and SA have produced some pretty amazing packs that in time which are difficult to beat in a world cup.
Not sure i’d agree with the origin example either. QLD always pick a consistent proven team and have done for years.. Which would explain why they’ve won for the last four series. Well that and the fact they’ve had the best league back line ever put together. Anyway, NSW chop and change and don’t get the results.
sheek said | June 10th 2010 @ 3:25pm | Report comment
Billo Boy,
This is precisely why the northern hemisphere boffins didn’t want the world cup in the first place – it would render all other internationals as blooding exercises for the next world cup.
However, the main reason why internationals between world cups don’t carry any gravitas anymore is because they’re like weeds – they’re everywhere! The Wallabies seem to be playing an international every second or third week. 14 internationals a year is overkill.
Test matches were meant to pit the best from one country against the best from another country in an ultimate contest of skill & grit. But not when you’re playing them every other week. Consequently, the world cup is the only thing that matters because most other internationals are merely ‘feeders’ for TV & revenue.
Also, history shows that generally the Wallabies are an ordinary rugby playing nation. Stellar years like 1980, 1984, 1986, 1991-93, 1998-2001 are the exception rather than the rule…..
We simply don’t have the playing numbers & depth to be consistently strong like NZ or SA.
ohtani's jacket said | June 10th 2010 @ 7:54am | Report comment
The June Tests are about RWC 2011? Haven’t you been saying that about every Test since 2008?
Since it only took a Test and a midweek fixture to prove that there’s no great depth in Australian rugby (just a bunch of uncapped players like in any other country), shouldn’t the point of the June Tests be to get the Wallabies playing well? All this focus on depth and selections disguises the fact that the Wallabies’ play is their biggest weakness. There’s nothing as foolhardy about Australian rugby as when people get excited about players. Take fullback, for example: people are genuinely excited that the Wallabies have three or more options at fullback this season, but I put it everyone that fullback has been a problem area for the Wallabies for two seasons now and that the individuals are not the problem but the coaching. Therefore, I don’t see what difference it makes who plays fullback if the Wallabies have no real method of play. In theory, they should be picking the player who best suits their systems and not necessarily the most talented individual but it appears to me that the Wallabies don’t have a system.
Jiggles said | June 10th 2010 @ 8:11am | Report comment
OJ,
I have to agree with you in theroy there. I agree that Australia does not have a real method of play. Blind freedy could see that the wallabies do not have the mongrel of the South African and All black packs, and I daresay from watching the BaaBa’s game England as well. So why do we persist in trying top play upfront confrontational rugby like these countries? the ARU who always trumpets Australian’s play “Smart Rugby”, well that I am affriad is further from the truth.
So yes you are correct in saying it doesn’t really matter who we pick at fullback as there is no method of play. I think the Wallabies have the potential in their backline to be the best in the world. however whats the point of having that back line if our pack continues to run one out off the ruck into the RSA and NZ packs? these teams will eat it up all day long and we Australian fans will shrug our shoulders, curse the ARU and the problems in rugby and start to “rebuild” for 2015.
kingplaymaker said | June 10th 2010 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
Jiggles I agree the Wallaby pack isn’t physical enough and so shouldn’t try to run straight into the RSA behemoths for example. They should run them off their feet, as the Reds did.
It’s worth remembering in this context that it wasn’t so long ago that the Wallabies did have a sufficiently physical pack-take Dan Vickerman and Hugh Mcmeniman away and it’s a different story all together. It could be they haven’t yet realised what they have lost.
Go_the_Wannabe's said | June 10th 2010 @ 10:12am | Report comment
Well OJ you have to say that don’t you? You sound like some broken record, over and over again…..if you don’t like it, then don’t post! It’s that easy…..but no, you want the attention don’t you, you little troll.
Tutu said | June 10th 2010 @ 11:34am | Report comment
So in effect you are saying if someone doesn’t agree with the thread then don’t post.
Basically GTW your trying to kill any debate.
So no point for the roar then, please delete all your sign in details and refrain from making any further posts.
Kidney said | June 10th 2010 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
WTF? I think OJ makes a reasonable point. Why should he not post if he doesn’t like it (whatever it you are referring to)?? This is an opinion website, bring on opinions I say!
warrenexpatinnz said | June 10th 2010 @ 11:56am | Report comment
OJ my take is that Deans has prepared a squad of players he feels meet the style he wishes to play. I don’t however think he has yet settled on starting positions until his injury toll subsides, namely with the forwards.
Regarding the backs he has a good amount of very good players to choose with his combination makeup being determined through the June tests and TN with the settled squad being the NH tour.
By then you would expect to see Palu, Horwill? as the missing peices as the other first choice players such as Moore, Robinson will have hopefully two or three games in the TN.
I may beat the Wallaby drum on the odd occasion but do that from a greater confidence of Deans ability to select the right players for the best team performance. Yes it has taken some time but I have seen positives such as linking between players from different Super 14 sides which seem instinct based rather than Brumbie regimented style. Deans has always stated that he wanted the players to play what was in front of them and whether I am seeing it differently from my cylops view point I think the players are, who takes the oppurtunity better is the question on player selection now.
With the June tests no TN side/coach wants to lose but it is far better getting through the serious injury list the Wallabies and ABs have now, being able to blood some unexpected players as well and god forbid, lose to a ‘lesser’ power than hit hurdles on the NH tour and into 2011.
counterruck said | June 10th 2010 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Billo Boy I see your point but the difference is that there are only three origin’s while the QantasTM Wallabies play a whopping 16 tests this year! that has to be some kind of record. three tests against England and SA and 4 against NZ. it all gets a bit meaningless and that is where the problem lies, I believe. and if ultimate, the objective is to win the world cup, which is only 7 games max, that makes so sense at all.
Billo Boy said | June 10th 2010 @ 8:45am | Report comment
I agree. That’s the problem.
Everyone knows most Origin games “matter”. But with Wallabies tests they have become subservient to the holy grail of the world cup.
But the cup is every four years and the tests throughout that period just don’t matter as to the final result.
We can’t ask casual sports fans to buy into the Wallabies if even we true fans don’t see the winning or losing of a test as a life or death matter (you know what I mean).
We need less tests but more test series.
SamSport said | June 10th 2010 @ 11:55am | Report comment
I don’t know if I completely agree with this. There is no way the Wallabies don’t field as strong a team as possible during the Tri-Nations. The difference between the Tri-Nations and June internationals is that Australia can field a weakened team and still win. From memory I don’t think the Wallabies have lost a June international under Deans (correct me if I’m wrong). So its not like they are sacrificing the win. I think that is why these mid-week games are good, they let the second-stringers build combinations and push for a Test spot. The only time I can think that fielding a weakened team has come unstuck was against Scotland late last year. Anyway, my point is, as long as Deans can get away with it (winning I mean), then a weakened team is fine by me.
Seiran said | June 11th 2010 @ 2:49am | Report comment
There’s also the Bledisloe. No way the Wallabies would field a weakened team for a prize that is so highly ranked.
drop kick said | June 10th 2010 @ 9:44am | Report comment
“Barnes kicked away too much good Barbarian ball to the extent that he brought England back into the game.”
It wasn’t Barnes that brought England back into the game it was the pack, aided and abetted by Deans’s self-admitted mistake in putting Weekes on the wrong side of the scrum. Two of their three tries happened after Weekes went to the bin.
Barnes organised the backs well throughout the game, didn’t kick that much and defended brilliantly.
Short-Blind. said | June 10th 2010 @ 8:55pm | Report comment
Droppy I’m sorry after initially being a Barnes fan (I am a QLDer ex League player like him) I, as well as many others now see him as quiet one dimensional. Yes he can defend but offers little in attack and I’m sorry – kicks way too much -and pointless kicking to boot. He held that backline back on Tues night and if his form line remains like that will only be a fill in replacement for the Wallabies at best in future. Ask yourself, when can you last remember Barnes dazzling/slicing through a strong defence or sending the long pass to gap runners? Tough isn’t it. He has two tools – kick or telegraphed slow sides step off his right foot….that everyone knows about and thus is easily defended. I like the guy as he is smart and tries hard but he appears just not to be up to it IMHO. Back to League talk may come true for this Kingaroy lad.
Justin said | June 10th 2010 @ 9:10pm | Report comment
SB – finally someone agrees with me. I said a few weeks back Barnes should be playing hooker…in League. He would be pretty handy I think.
drop kick said | June 11th 2010 @ 11:56am | Report comment
“Ask yourself, when can you last remember Barnes dazzling/slicing through a strong defence or sending the long pass to gap runners?”
Against the Hurricanes in Super 14.
Apelu Tielu said | June 10th 2010 @ 9:48am | Report comment
I think we put too much emphasis on the front row re the scrum when the guys behind the, the locks, are probably the main issue. The scrum is not about three players; there are 8 players per team involved in it.
Go_the_Wannabe's said | June 10th 2010 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Hoorah…..at last someone’s worked it out. If you’re losing scrums, it’s not just the prop’s fault……there’s 8 guys there who are supposed to be pushing, remember?
I remember the prop’s always blaming the locks and vice versa……it’s a team effort guys!
warrenexpatinnz said | June 10th 2010 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Chapman, Chislom and Hoiles compared to Elsom, Mumm, Sharpe then take out Polata Nou and Palu the engine room lacks a bit of mature muscle.
Hoping for a dry track as the game won’t be won in the forwards.
pothale said | June 10th 2010 @ 10:46am | Report comment
Funnily enough, when you look at the supposed ‘forward looking sides’ that Spiro mentions, I just checked the SA side to play France on Saturday. As far as I can tell, 11 players starting are from the WC squad 2007 with another two on the bench.
Seiran said | June 11th 2010 @ 2:52am | Report comment
Spiro also commented on the ages of some of the Springboks and questioned how the coach will manage them up to the WC.
Many of their players are getting past their prime.
Gary said | June 10th 2010 @ 11:38am | Report comment
When Weekeswas sinbinned the English kept playing through the forwards even though my under 11s can tell you the thing to do in that situation is to create the overlap. The first try they scored was a continuation of what was going on before the sinbinning and the second almost an accident.
The English treat their backline as an extension of the pack rather than as a tactical unit in it’s own right. Nothing demonstrates this more clearly than Matt Baanahan, a huge, slow winger who lacks agility. Very useful at the breakdown and rucks very well but winger he isn’t.
And what’s with the endless huddles everytime they win the put in. Here comes a planned move I’d thnk to myself. Then put it in and puish was all that eventuated. Time after time.
The way to beat them is through the backs as James O’Connor demonstrated so convincingly on Tuesday until he was taken off.
James O’Connor has selected himself. If Robbie doesn’t confirm that you’d have to wonder what is going on.
soapit said | June 10th 2010 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
why would there be an overlap if a prop is in the bin?
kingplaymaker said | June 10th 2010 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
Gary O’Connor was good but Beale was also good against better opposition. Most of the tries both of them produced just involved running the ball in. I would stick with Beale to start with. O’Connor was also rather found out last year in the Tri-nations after a hat-trick in another warm-up match.
Penfold said | June 10th 2010 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
You cannot say Fiji was better opposition.. They had a prop at 13 and their 12 wasn’t much slimmer. But agree in giving Beale first crack..
Can anybody tell me what has happened to Hynes.. He’s only on the bench for the baa baas after a cracking s14 season. Cummings even got a run ahead of him.
kingplaymaker said | June 10th 2010 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
England have an extraordinarily terrible manager in Martin Johnson which is a bigger problem. France can’t win because they’ll only turn up to one of the knockout matches.
In addition to an ageing side, South Africa have a pair of distinctly average centres who disable their entire back division, two uncreative players in the two Steyns who maim the attack although are necessary to the RSA game-plan for their boots. Hence the backline is deeply dysfunctional.
They won’t win. New Zealand or the Wallabies, both teams discovering new players.