June 2010 Tests should be all about RWC 2011
By Spiro Zavos, 10 Jun 2010 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- International Rugby, Mick Cleary, Peter de Villiers, Rugby Union, Tri Nations, UK Telegraph, wallabies
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Wallabies news
- Tri Nations Tournament news
- International Rugby Union - Six Nations, Heineken Cup, Rugby Championship 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.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.



June 10th 2010 @ 1:06pm
Kidney said | June 10th 2010 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
When did a centre win a world cup? Team with biggest meanest pack and steadiest and best kicking 10 will win – that is RSA in a canter currently.
June 10th 2010 @ 1:13pm
kingplaymaker said | June 10th 2010 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
Kidney bad centres and uncreative fly-halves prevent a team from being effective when they run the ball: this removes a string from RSA’s bow. They have to rely purely on their kicking game, and may be in trouble if forced to run the ball.
RSA may win now, but we are talking about next september.
June 10th 2010 @ 1:44pm
Kidney said | June 10th 2010 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
Well, if you think back to the teams that have one the WC in the past, with perhaps the exception of the 87 ABs, the backs with numbers bigger than 10 were not the difference in the end. And running in heaps of fancy tries in the early games didn’t lead the ABs win in 99 or 95 or 07 for that matter.
Dont’ get me wrong, I”m an ABs fan and I love it when we’re playing attractive attacking rugby, but if you’re wanting to win a world cup, a ball playing 10 hasn’t been the way forward in the past. Think Lynagh, Wilkinson, Fox, Stransky, James. Steyn is much more like them than Cooper or Carter (at least on his 09/10 form).
June 11th 2010 @ 3:31am
Crank It. said | June 11th 2010 @ 3:31am | Report comment
Don’t know KPM…these Boks have a bunch of depth…something I’m sure they will get onto the pitch in the two Italian Tests and some of the end of year tests. Lets say their “B” side plays 6 Tests over the next 12 months…that can only help them at WC time….not only their depth development…but in giving their older players rest.
Too me…you have to tip the Boks as favourites.
June 10th 2010 @ 2:50pm
Penfold said | June 10th 2010 @ 2:50pm | Report comment
Tim Horan
June 10th 2010 @ 9:13pm
Justin said | June 10th 2010 @ 9:13pm | Report comment
A God! Was there when he was running Ireland ragged in 99 at Lansdowne Rd
June 10th 2010 @ 1:51pm
kingplaymaker said | June 10th 2010 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
Kidney you make an interesting point that many of the teams that have won have done so by playing a kicking rather than a running game: South Africa twice and England for example.
However, it could be that a top running team have never made it to the final or when they have have underperformed. If New Zealand had got there in 2003 and 2007 and have let their backs rip I wonder if the opposition would have been able to hold out.
My point is slightly different though: it’s that even pure kicking teams actually need some reasonable backs to finish off the stuff the forwards create. South Africa’s backline are just too weak in this department. It’s fine if they have a joke of a run to the Cup as in 2007, encountering a feeble series of teams, but if they face the All Blacks or Wallabies this time they could come unstuck.
June 10th 2010 @ 4:14pm
andrew said | June 10th 2010 @ 4:14pm | Report comment
Tim Horan is a centre that (almost) won the cup – he was certainly the player of the tournament – without a kicking fly half and without the biggest and meanest pack. I dont think Australia had the biggest and meanest pack in 91either, but can’t be stuffed checking it up.
Really, at the risk of getting back on track, who else could Deans have picked this weekend? I think the whole concept that he is looking at 2011 is interesting, but I don’t see any evidence of it in team selection except the omission of Van Humphries and Al Baxter. But in both cases, regardless of whether you are looking ahead to the cup or ahead to the next 10 games, when your first choice is out, and you have a young second choice or an old second choice, why wouldnt you go with the young?
June 10th 2010 @ 4:21pm
whodares said | June 10th 2010 @ 4:21pm | Report comment
Looks like the Wallabies are in for a flogging
We have little chance of winning our own scrums let alone any tight heads. (not much ball to be had here)
Our backrow and tight fice except for Pocock showed against Fiji they don’t want to get involved at the Break Down (again not much ball to be had here)
Line outs well who is regarded as a world class jumper? Nobody in the pack really (we may hold our own ball but in reality we will probably lose a few on our own throw) (still not much ball).
With little ball to be had at the break down it would be dangerous indeed to be running the ball and even more to kick it away.
We might have some good attack (with Quade still a maybe and Horne in second test) but with little ball will be too tired from defending to attack at our best.
Bloody hell Deans already has the worst winning record of any wallabies coach you would think he would be wanting to win the here and now rather than building for a dream somewhere in the future. That would at least take the pressure off the team and coaching staff.
No Barnes, No Baxter(at least he has experience), No Adam Ashley Cooper, No Turner, and a lot of unproven nobodies
June 10th 2010 @ 4:52pm
whodares said | June 10th 2010 @ 4:52pm | Report comment
Hynes must be in a relationship with Robbies wife
Baxter it appears is on the alternate nights
June 10th 2010 @ 7:35pm
Die Hard Bok said | June 10th 2010 @ 7:35pm | Report comment
“My point is slightly different though: it’s that even pure kicking teams actually need some reasonable backs to finish off the stuff the forwards create. South Africa’s backline are just too weak in this department. It’s fine if they have a joke of a run to the Cup as in 2007, encountering a feeble series of teams, but if they face the All Blacks or Wallabies this time they could come unstuck.” –
F. Du Preez, B. Habana, J. De Villiers, J. De Jong (remember him stepping the Tahs punchdrunk?) J. Fourie – These backs dont seem that ordinary to me at all. Aussies like to point to last year’s Brisbane match where you guys really turned up and credit for that, but the match just a week before that in Perth where the Boks demolished the Aussies with a running game has, not suprisingly, been swept under the carpet of your selective memory. The same with the last match of TriNations ’08 where SA put a record score over Aus. These Boks can run when they need to.
June 11th 2010 @ 3:05am
Seiran said | June 11th 2010 @ 3:05am | Report comment
The last match in 08 was played at altitude and the Wallabies were clearly knackered going into that game. Lets not also forget that game was a dead rubber and the following weeks game was the decider for the 3N.
The Perth match was played with two replacement centres and the Springboks did a good job of attacking these centres who’s defence was terrible.
And if you really want to dig into history let’s not also forget the 06 match when the Wallabies ran in a 49-0 score against the Boks. Now that’s embarrassing
June 11th 2010 @ 3:27am
JJ said | June 11th 2010 @ 3:27am | Report comment
Not as embarressing as losing 61-22…yes 61. OUCH!
June 11th 2010 @ 5:54am
Jerry said | June 11th 2010 @ 5:54am | Report comment
Actually I reckon being blanked while the other team racks up 49 points is worse. In a 61-22 match, your defence is shit but at least you pulled finger at some point and ran in some points. In a 49-0 match your defence and attack was abysmal for the entire match.
June 11th 2010 @ 6:26am
Tutu said | June 11th 2010 @ 6:26am | Report comment
Losing by 49 points and giving the opposition a big fat Donut or losing by 41 points and scoring 22 points hmmmm
I’d say a OUCH to losing 49 to zip not even getting a penalty that is truly lame……
June 11th 2010 @ 10:32am
Crank It. said | June 11th 2010 @ 10:32am | Report comment
Nah…I’m going with 61. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 61 PEOPLE!! Oh well…opinions are like…
June 11th 2010 @ 10:41am
Tutu said | June 11th 2010 @ 10:41am | Report comment
I’m talking about Australia still managed to score 22 points Crank it.
South Africa failed to score 0, ZIP, NIL, ZERO, NUTTA, NOTHING, ZILCH,
As has been said above the scoreline indicates how appalling and lethargic both their defense and attack was
June 10th 2010 @ 8:11pm
Samgb said | June 10th 2010 @ 8:11pm | Report comment
@Spiro and everyone else
The Telegraph article on England is misleading because none of the midweek side will be playing on Saturday. Im not saying we wont be rubbish but that is not the first team. Flood will stand flatter, Tindall the old war-horse will almost certainly get us over the gainline in the midfield, and Ashton and Foden are very exciting with ball in hand.
Having said all that, Johnson and the coaches will probably frighten them into up-the-jumpers and we will be crap as in the pre-France 6nations. We can only hope that doesnt happen. The thing is with a weakened Aussie pack we might get a tight result when to be frank it would be better for us to play more expansively and get beat. At least you could point to some progress then.
June 10th 2010 @ 9:49pm
Stash said | June 10th 2010 @ 9:49pm | Report comment
The bookies are always good to gauge where teams are sitting. And its about money so they don’t back teams lightly.
Here’s where the odds are sitting now:
New Zealand 1/7 – so not good news for the Irish supporters
Australia 1/4 – Englands in for a hard day at the office as far as they are concerned. Wallaby supporters should take heart from this bookie backing.
South Africa 1/3 – France comes in as the potential upset of the weekend. But no excuses from SA, they are fielding a strong team with lots of rested players.
June 11th 2010 @ 10:49am
Tutu said | June 11th 2010 @ 10:49am | Report comment
I find it somewhat intriguing that everyone is building France up to be absolutely great, yes they did beat the ABs at home by a few points last year, but did the ABs not absolutely massacre them in Marseilles? The Fact that all the other NH teams are being written off well before Kick off, France are being touted as the next best thing. It is amusing considering that their campaign in the 6N Irish match aside was hardly world beating. The scrapped past England and Wales and ahad a far from Impressive win over Scotland.
My money is on the Boks to give them an absolute schooling
June 10th 2010 @ 10:01pm
Stash said | June 10th 2010 @ 10:01pm | Report comment
Big NEWS for the All Blacks with confirmation coming in now that Sonny Bill Williams has signed to New Zealand rugby!!
June 11th 2010 @ 12:59am
bennalong said | June 11th 2010 @ 12:59am | Report comment
Will he be playing for the All Blacks, or New Zealand. Is he truly a hand on heart, anthem-singing New Zealander, or a guy who always wanted to be an All Black? ………………….Does this matter Stash?
[Following on from this Spiro, are you implying in your piece that Graham Henry's running his own form of Crusaders policy?!!??]
June 11th 2010 @ 6:35am
Kidney said | June 11th 2010 @ 6:35am | Report comment
Yawn. Get back to me when we see that the guy can actually play union. Timana Tahu anyone?
June 11th 2010 @ 7:37am
allblackfan said | June 11th 2010 @ 7:37am | Report comment
The ARU handled Tahu wrong. The NZRFU have shown the ARU how to do it.
In his first season of rugby, Tahu became a Waratah then a Wallaby without mastering the game first.
SBW has already had two seasons of rugby behind him, he has to play in NZ’s domestic competition to earn selection and his form will be assessed on its merits for the end of year tour. He still has to make a Super rugby side (although that shouldn’t be a problem) and then there’s the RWC.
After all, Brad Thorn made a good fist of the transition, didn’t he?
June 11th 2010 @ 12:54am
bennalong said | June 11th 2010 @ 12:54am | Report comment
I was very disappointed in the Australia A v England 2nds.
I’m sure these blokes were trying, and I know they’ve only just come together, but after the second rate game against Fiji I must support the criticisms above that these mid year games are, like the Myer’s sales…… second rate.
I hope I’m proven wrong on Saturday but I have to agree with Sheek way back up the top that the World Cup has taken all the drama out of Test Matches. Their aims are preparation, at least on onew level, whereas in the past there was so much national pride at stake
Ironically they now seem appropriately named (Tests!), but I remember fondly the drama of the three test series between two well trained teams, the best there countries could offer.
I would therefore propose that these games between ill-prepared teams not carry the desciptor Tests and simply be referred to as Internationals.