Wallabies implode again at altitude
By David Beniuk, 29 Aug 2010
- Tagged:
- Rugby Union, Springboks, Tri Nations, Tri-Nations Tests, wallabies
201 Have your say
Related coverage
The Wallabies have failed again at altitude in South Africa, throwing away a blistering start to the Tri-Nations Test in Pretoria to go down to the Springboks 44-31.
Australia had scored three tries within the opening 10 minutes to lead 21-7 and led 28-24 at the break after seven five-pointers were scored in a madcap opening 40 minutes few had expected.
But the Wallabies continually cruelled their second half opportunities with poor handling and lineout work, allowing the desperate Springboks to notch their first win of the series in Victor Matfield’s 100th Test in front of 43,152 at his home ground of Loftus Versfeld.
The result means Australia are yet to win in Pretoria after five Tests and they haven’t won on the South African highveld since 1963.
The Nelson Mandela Challenge Plate and second place behind New Zealand in the Tri-Nations will now depend on the result of next weekend’s Test in Bloemfontein.
“We didn’t hold onto the ball so we didn’t spend long enough in possession, we turned over more ball than South Africa did, that was a big part of it,” Wallabies coach Robbie Deans said.
“And obviously critically at the end, when we had built some pressure and had opportunities, our set piece came up short, and our finishing wasn’t as effective.”
South Africa scored five tries to four, with Australia’s all coming in the first half.
The Loftus crowd were silenced when Will Genia dummied and scored in just the third minute and James O’Connor bagged the first of a double after after a scintillating 60m run by Kurtley Beale in the fifth.
Springboks flanker Juan Smith powered through some threadbare defence in the ninth minute but O’Connor was there to pounce when Bryan Habana dropped the kick-off and Australia led 21-7.
The Boks narrowed the lead to seven when prop Gurthro Steenkamp burrowed over in the 14th minute and an altitude-powered 59m penalty goal from Morne Steyn made it 21-17 after 20 minutes.
The Wallabies’ determination to spread the ball paid off again, though, six minutes later with a Dean Mumm five-pointer and it was 28-17 before Springboks No.8 Pierre Spies completed the first half madness with a 32nd minute try.
But the Wallabies began imploding after the break with a succession of errors.
Steyn and Matt Giteau exchanged penalty goals in the 47th and 49th minutes before the Springboks took the lead – 34-31- for the first time in the match through a Francois Steyn try a minute after Mumm had spilled a kick-off.
Boks fullback Francois Steyn increased the lead to 37-31 with a 68th minute penalty goal and a JP Pietersen try a minute from time rubbed salt into Australia’s wounds.
© AAP 2012Recommend 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.
- Explore:
- Rugby Union, Springboks, Tri Nations, Tri-Nations Tests, wallabies
August 29th 2010 @ 7:39am
Short-Blind. said | August 29th 2010 @ 7:39am | Report comment
Another anit-Deans anti everything AB rant posted without even watching the game. DS most of the above posters including Saffers say there is a ‘struck match’ between the 3 sides but in your opinion both of them are extremely ‘poor’. Teams put on 30 against the Boks because their attack ‘clicked’. Yes it sounds like the Wallys fell in a hole and made crucial errors at crucial times but that is what a young developing team does. Yes it sounds like Deans again under used his bench and if so the hard questions needs to be asked. However I will hold my powder dry and i’ve watched the reply this arvo. I suggest you do the same.
August 29th 2010 @ 8:34am
darwin stubby said | August 29th 2010 @ 8:34am | Report comment
Er I think that those supporters suggesting the closeness of the TN teams are wallaby and boks fans trying to hold onto an alternative realty – as cinematic says above “suggest you refer to the competition points standing before suggesting the teams are close”
August 29th 2010 @ 8:46am
kingplaymaker said | August 29th 2010 @ 8:46am | Report comment
darwin give Deans the South African team and De Villiers the Wallabies and you can imagine what the result would be.
August 29th 2010 @ 8:01am
Face the Facts said | August 29th 2010 @ 8:01am | Report comment
How does a NZ supporter get to call himself Darwin Stubby??
August 29th 2010 @ 11:29am
CraigB said | August 29th 2010 @ 11:29am | Report comment
maybe he’s big and full of s**t
August 29th 2010 @ 11:50pm
Spencer said | August 29th 2010 @ 11:50pm | Report comment
Gold!
August 29th 2010 @ 8:24am
allblackfan said | August 29th 2010 @ 8:24am | Report comment
Ref was lenient on both sides at the breakdown and with the high tackles.
Maafu is a serial flopper. He makes no effort to stay on his feet and help Pocock who was contained pretty handily by the Boks.
August 29th 2010 @ 8:32am
mampara said | August 29th 2010 @ 8:32am | Report comment
Hope you are having a good morning Spiro, you baboon.
Fact of the matter is Matfield had your lineout at 6s and 7s in the 2nd half, Hougaard outplayed Genia and everytime pocock went into a ruck Juan Smith blew him away.
Oz didn’t implode they were beaten.
Kumul…blaming the ref…loving it.
Welcome back Juan Smith, best bok on the field last 2 tests (with hougaard a close 2nd), hopefully Bismark will be back next week then barney can hopefully get taken off at 20 mins, at least he was gone at 60 so he wasn’t there to miss another tackle at the back end of the game.
August 29th 2010 @ 12:20pm
Rockin Rod said | August 29th 2010 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
Our lineout is rubbish, why on earth is Van Humphries not in the side. He would start all day in a reds first xv over simmons. We lost the game when Sharpe went off as we had no one that could run the lineout, disgrace.
August 30th 2010 @ 8:48am
taylorbridge said | August 30th 2010 @ 8:48am | Report comment
Van Humphries would have done better than Dean Mumm re lineouts. is it not better to have a player like VH who can win the lineouts but maybe( ??) not not a s quick around the field but is 100% effective at the task he is selected for? When the lineouts went awry why wasnt Steve Moore put on. Fainga was falling away in the 2 nd half.
August 29th 2010 @ 6:38pm
Seiran said | August 29th 2010 @ 6:38pm | Report comment
troll
August 29th 2010 @ 8:35am
jeremy said | August 29th 2010 @ 8:35am | Report comment
I have no emotional investment in either side so thought it was a cracker of a game!
Positives in there for the Wallabies esp in backing themselves to chance . But hats off truly to the Springboks who clawed their way back into the match and built the intensity up to ultimately get there in the last 20 of the game. The Wallabies didn’t lose it, the Springboks won it.
August 29th 2010 @ 8:45am
kingplaymaker said | August 29th 2010 @ 8:45am | Report comment
jeremy I disagree: some of the Wallabies mistakes in the second half were ridiculous: Mumm’s dropped ball from a retart with no pressure, Ashley-Cooper’s dropped ball with the line at his mercy, and endless, crazy knock-ons! How many were there? If only a couple of these basic mistakes hadn’t occurred, I can’t imagine the Wallabies would have lost. What’s worse, these mistakes hardly came from South African pressure (as is often the case), but who knows where they came from! A very odd psychological collapse indeed.
August 29th 2010 @ 8:48am
Hayden said | August 29th 2010 @ 8:48am | Report comment
I thought Two Dads dropped the ball as a result of a crunching tackle by Hougaard.
August 29th 2010 @ 8:53am
kingplaymaker said | August 29th 2010 @ 8:53am | Report comment
Should have protected it as every other player would normally and he himself would normally.
August 29th 2010 @ 11:06am
Moaman said | August 29th 2010 @ 11:06am | Report comment
had the ball in the wrong hand
August 29th 2010 @ 8:57am
mampara said | August 29th 2010 @ 8:57am | Report comment
mmmKingplaymaker….nonsense there…what about Habana’s shocking drop, gifting O.connors try, which was 7 points, and yes AAC got hit in a good tackle…your lot got beaten, take it on the chin.
August 29th 2010 @ 9:03am
kingplaymaker said | August 29th 2010 @ 9:03am | Report comment
mampara I didn’t get beaten by the way. South Africa also made a basic mistake there of course, but that Ashley-Cooper’s error was only one of a list of many in the second half, basic mistakes under no pressure, which gifted the match to the Springboks who really had it presented to them on a silver platter by the nervous, bumbling Wallabies.
August 29th 2010 @ 9:08am
mampara said | August 29th 2010 @ 9:08am | Report comment
Have you ever laced up a pair of rugby boots?
August 29th 2010 @ 12:47pm
Mick Gold Coast QLD said | August 29th 2010 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
“what about Habana’s shocking drop”
I said to the missus at the time “Hopeless that Habana, I’ve seen him do that before about 5 years back. That’s twice now he’s made a blue, in his ineffective career – oughta be dropped!”.
Didn’t his old home crowd give Brian Habana some stick from there on!
August 29th 2010 @ 12:41pm
Rockin Rod said | August 29th 2010 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
I agree kingplaymaker, the wallabies lost that test, it was their to be one and they choked, totally lost their composure. They started to kick away possesion and defend their lead, you just cant do that. Simple mistakes like losing lineout throws and knock ons, bread and butter stuff
August 29th 2010 @ 8:36am
kingplaymaker said | August 29th 2010 @ 8:36am | Report comment
The negative side for the Wallabies and why they will continue losing:
NO STRIKE RUNNERS. FOUR playmakers fielded (Cooper, Giteau, Beale, O’Connor), continually making plays for each other, with no real runners to work up those plays and tear the opposition line in shreds. When will you learn?
The positive side for the Wallabies:
With the return of Palu, Polota-Nau and eventually Vickerman their pack will be a match for both South Africa and New Zealand. This was, remember, a severely depleted pack.
August 29th 2010 @ 8:46am
Hayden said | August 29th 2010 @ 8:46am | Report comment
Jeez king, I was waiting for this old chestnut to come out, and it took 23 comments. Palu is almost as big a cream puff as Spies, and if you are pinning your hopes on a geriatric like Vickerman, who hasn’t played serious rugby in two years, then things are looking grim indeed. Polota-Nau? What’s he done, apart from getting injured, and being a part of this team’s abysmal record?
August 29th 2010 @ 8:50am
kingplaymaker said | August 29th 2010 @ 8:50am | Report comment
Hayden didn’t you see the last spring tour? Palu WAS a cream puff but had CHANGED and become the OUTSTANDING player on that tour. He and Polota-Nau are two fiercely effective players in the loose and add massive physicality and go-forward to the Wallabies pack. I said ‘eventually’ Vickerman if you look carefully.
But like most Wallabies fans you are predictably missing the main point. The OUTSIDE BACKS are the problems and the reason the Wallabies lose, not the forwards or the inside backs!
August 29th 2010 @ 8:53am
Hayden said | August 29th 2010 @ 8:53am | Report comment
Which spring tour? The GS attempt? I admit I don’t recall details of specific player’s performances, but the team didn’t cover itself in glory on that tour. And Vickerman is so old, he can’t afford eventually.
August 29th 2010 @ 8:55am
kingplaymaker said | August 29th 2010 @ 8:55am | Report comment
Hayden he was dominant and ferocious, and in fact got the players’ own award for best player. In fact often he was superior to the rest of the Wallabies pack combined. That’s why everyone talks of missing him now, when they didn’t once upon a time.
August 29th 2010 @ 3:00pm
Jerry said | August 29th 2010 @ 3:00pm | Report comment
Rubbish, everyone talks about him being unavailable cause you Wallaby supporters love to use all those missing players as a reason why you’re losing. They also use the likes of Vickerman who’s not played in years and TPN who’s been a bench player for about 85% of the tests he’s played in.
August 29th 2010 @ 9:05am
mampara said | August 29th 2010 @ 9:05am | Report comment
Most laughable comment I have ever read involving the Wallabies….Kingplaymaker……..when you lot loose IT IS ALWAYS THE FORWARDS…that Oz backline has got so many points in it its not funny, if YOUR FORWARDS were the real deal you would be the best team in the world. The fact that you are the number 3 team in the world is because of your backline, certainly not your forwards. If it was up to them you would be well behind England and France.
August 29th 2010 @ 9:15am
kingplaymaker said | August 29th 2010 @ 9:15am | Report comment
I never said it was because of the forwards, I said that with the return of certain key players the forwards would a force.
I also said that the problem was not the inside backs, but the outside backs, a distinction you seem unable to recognise.
August 29th 2010 @ 9:30am
mampara said | August 29th 2010 @ 9:30am | Report comment
heavens above, if you think you loose because of your wingers and outside centre I shall withdraw from the debate, I’ll get more from my 3 year old son.
August 29th 2010 @ 5:33pm
David said | August 29th 2010 @ 5:33pm | Report comment
King, Giteau is only a playmaker in the media! When did anyone last see Giteau beat a first tackle let alone 2 or 3??? Giteau and Adam Ashley-Cooper are the two major weak links in the backs and in this modern running version of the game, they are being completely shown up even more. Just think Ma’a Nonu and Giteau as inside centres in the same breath – chalk and cheese! The Wallabies have got some great backs penned in such as Kirtley, Quade, Genia, O’Connor & Mitchell but need to go back to the drawing board fast for the center pairing of Giteau & AAC. We got rid of one media generated great in Berrick Barnes and need to do the same with Giteau & AAC.
August 29th 2010 @ 8:44am
Good Game Pathetic Commentary said | August 29th 2010 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Here we go blame the ref and bring out the young developing side comments. I haven’t read the building to the world cup yet. The crowd numbers tell me a story. Seems that even the SA supporters did not turn up in force. 43,000 versus 94,000 for the All Blacks match. Speaks volume of the interest to watch the wallabies. For the record I enjoyed the game, it was competitive even though both sides making errors at crucial times. It was physical and running rugby at times. The commentators spoil the game being armchair refs. The so called stars did not shine thank goodness because I could not stand here about the positives and brilliant individual play in a team sport. Deans has lost me but I remain a supporter of good rugby. I can’t help but feel that in this series the AB have softened up the SA before we get to play them. The AB are the standout team, a close/competitive hard fought match is good for both supporters of the teams but consistently winning is what remains in the record book. Please stop with we gave them a run for their money and bring out all the positives that we can just to come second again.
August 29th 2010 @ 7:32pm
Jetta said | August 29th 2010 @ 7:32pm | Report comment
GGPC, I think you’ll find that both the wallabies an the allblacks games were capacity crowds, the AB’s just played at a larger stadium
August 29th 2010 @ 8:45am
stillmissit said | August 29th 2010 @ 8:45am | Report comment
I dropped my tea at the start of the second half when Genia stood over, a la Gregan, with the ball available at the first breakdown, then we took it in short 5x and kicked it up field. I thought oh! Christ we are going back to one off craaap. Sure enough we did with a couple of exceptions.
Beale played very well and if I was Parramatta I would have been talking to Beale rather than Cooper. AAC was stragely quiet and this is the sort of game he enjoys.
I never thought I would say that losing Sharpe would be a game changer but I thought this when he went off and so it was. Mumm is nobody’s idea of a forward. He tried hard but he just doesn’t have it.
Agree with Suzy Poison Burgess should have been on for the last 30mins Genia is still not fully fit and it showed. If we are going to play tight in the second half what does Cooper give us? Not much, and we would have been better off with Barnes particularly in defence. Having said that I thought Cooper played well, some of his long passes were pin point BUT watch out for Habana looking for intercepts in Bloemfontein off Coopers passes.
Robbie Deans – what are his half time talks about? The boys seem to come out flat after almost every half time talk. Use of the bench – I think it has all been said but he has been doing this for a while and it smells of ‘I only have 15 players’.
August 29th 2010 @ 9:44am
kingplaymaker said | August 29th 2010 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Yes as the outside backs are 11, 13, 14, 15 that is almost a third of the team, I think it’s perfectly easy to lose because of them.
If the Wallabies outside backs had been for example: Israel Dagg, Conrad Smith, Cory Jane and Mils Muliaina they would have won. So, not having good enough outside backs, who as a result couldn’t do the mass of damage FOUR powerful strike runners are capable of, they lost. So they lost because of the outside backs.
August 29th 2010 @ 10:06am
Oakie said | August 29th 2010 @ 10:06am | Report comment
Yeah I’ve often wondered what he might say at half time, I just can’t see he’s got it in him to fire a team up for the second half, if you watch him in interviews the words seem to get stuck somewhere before they fall out, I sometimes imagine their should be someone standing behind him to to give him a tap on the back of the head so it flows a bit faster, I know its mean to pick on the coach but if he does not get us win soon I am going to garotte myself.
August 29th 2010 @ 10:17am
kingplaymaker said | August 29th 2010 @ 10:17am | Report comment
Oakie blame the players, or the lack of enough top players, not the coach. As I say above give Deans the Springbok team and De Villiers the Wallabies and it would be an obvious result.
What Deans says incidentally is far more useful and intelligent than any other coach in the world. That he has a less than fluid spoken manner is another point altogether.
August 29th 2010 @ 10:54am
Oakie said | August 29th 2010 @ 10:54am | Report comment
Don’t worry I do blame the players, I actually like Deans a lot but I find it hard to see him being very inspirational at half time as Stillmissit said the boys seem to come out flat after almost every half time break.
August 29th 2010 @ 11:11am
kingplaymaker said | August 29th 2010 @ 11:11am | Report comment
Oakie who knows what goes on there. I think the problem in the second half was not how the Wallabies played or their intensity, but the bizarre series of mistakes they started making! Maybe they were afraid to win/lose?
August 29th 2010 @ 11:21am
Hayden said | August 29th 2010 @ 11:21am | Report comment
Maybe they were tired also, which goes back to Dean’s achilles heel imho, his selection and management of his bench. He seems reluctant to pull players off when they start to fade. That accidental offside that ruined a good attacking opportunity was a classic example of tired players making mistakes. The line out went to pieces toward the end also. I thought Sharpe had one of his better games, but he gets pulled so there is no lineout leader and Matfield steals a vital one, and another chance goes missing. Who knows why Moore wasn’t on the field. Even Marto and Kearnsy agreed with me.
August 29th 2010 @ 1:07pm
Mick Gold Coast QLD said | August 29th 2010 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
Robbie Deans speaks sense, just about all the time.
Where he comes from they do not subscribe to the sports commentator view of the world that 15 words are always preferable when just 3 will do. His captains Reuben Thorne, Todd Blackadder and Richie McCaw are similarly afflicted.
Conversely, Matt Giteau talks a lot on the field but very little comes from it.
The Wallabies are not especially good listeners, demonstrably, and they have not been for quite some time.
August 30th 2010 @ 9:04am
taylorbridge said | August 30th 2010 @ 9:04am | Report comment
Stillmissit,
100% agree. I love Genia’s work but Burgess would have provided fresh legs. Did you see the total coldness that Moore and Fainga exchanged they passed each other after Fainga had to be blood binned in the 1st half . Compare it to how Matfield acknowledged his opposition after the game.
August 29th 2010 @ 9:19am
Justin said | August 29th 2010 @ 9:19am | Report comment
From a Wallaby perspective the game was lost at the lineout. SImple. Saia had a shocker and Mumm was useless. Matfield take a bow. So again why wasnt Steven Moore used when it was obvious SF was struggling with his throws? He had a poor game all round and should have been dragged early in the second half.
Moore could have easily been the difference in the last 30mins with his experience and fresh legs bt no we dont see him at all after the blood bin. Unbelievable.
Ihope Sharpe was injured. I know he went down with an ankle but then seemed to play more and didnt look to be struggling when he walked off.
Deans in a post match interview moaned about another injury to Higginbotham. What would have happened without Simmons on the bench? He should have been there the whole time. Dean Mumm and Maafu continue to start when they are not up to Test match football.
No point having a bench if you dont use it Robbie! How daft can you be? WHy choose 2 inside centres on the bench and no cover for the back 3? WHy not use either of them?
As someone mentioned earlier AUS have 5 play makers in the backline and not nearly enough strike runners. Who’s fault is that?
August 29th 2010 @ 9:21am
kingplaymaker said | August 29th 2010 @ 9:21am | Report comment
‘As someone mentioned earlier AUS have 5 play makers in the backline and not nearly enough strike runners. Who’s fault is that?’
John O’Neill.
August 29th 2010 @ 1:53pm
Suzy Poison said | August 29th 2010 @ 1:53pm | Report comment
Someone said, the wallabies, have 5 play-makers and not one strike runner. Well, the Boks have 5 strike-runners and not one play-maker. I think you guys are better off. That’s probably not fair, I thought Hougaard had a fantastic game. It’s funny how the Boks tend to produce 9′s that are play-makers as opposed to 10′s? I have to say that is the best game I have seen Kurtley Beale play ever. This year has been his coming of age. I would have him in Tri-Nations composite team ahead of Mils even. Mils has better defence, but Kurtley is getting there, he is a fast learner. I thought the main difference between the teams was, in the second half the Boks really stepped up their defence. A lot of their tackles were knocking guys back.
Perhaps the altitude did take it out of the Wallas, at the end. They will be better this weekend. Both teams were desperate to win, perhaps the Boks were a little more desperate. A seriously think the Wallas could end their highveld hoodoo next weekend. Three tough games games in a row, is going to take it out of the Boks. What a great competition, the Tri-Nations, there is no place to hide. 5% off your game and the team is exposed.
August 29th 2010 @ 2:01pm
ohtani's jacket said | August 29th 2010 @ 2:01pm | Report comment
Morne Steyn had a strong game, I thought. He was one of the better backs on the field.
August 29th 2010 @ 6:19pm
Suzy Poison said | August 29th 2010 @ 6:19pm | Report comment
Well even P Divvy recognises how many play-makers the Wallas have. Here is his latest quote, when asked about the Wallaby backline:
“They’ve got some good dancers in the team, guys who can dance without hearing music.”
I am starting to warm to the guy, will there ever be another nutter like him?
August 29th 2010 @ 8:23pm
Nathan said | August 29th 2010 @ 8:23pm | Report comment
Too many playmakers in the Wallaby backline. Apreciate there are injuries but having Quade Cooper, Kurtley Beale and James O’Connor in the same backline is 1 too many. James O’Connor’s best position is FB and Kurtley Beale’s is 10. Wouldn’t necessarily drop Cooper but wouldn’t have all 3 in the same backline.
August 29th 2010 @ 9:30pm
Suzy Poison said | August 29th 2010 @ 9:30pm | Report comment
You are right Nathan. Wallas are missing a “Mortlock” A guy that can occupy three defenders. What was that Queensland State of origin league player that Roy and HG used to call “Three knees”, a complete niggle merchant, I can still see him wriggling on the turf? Well that was Mortlock, he would always break through three tackles because of his leg strength. Wallas are missing those big guys like Latham or Matt Burke. What has happened to the Wallabies, have they all shrunk in the tumble drier? Look at the last two world cup winners. 2003, England had two big centres. Now the Saffas have won their first game when the have the partnership of Jean De Villiers and Jacque Fourie re-united for the first time. Co-incidence, I think not?
August 29th 2010 @ 11:29am
kingplaymaker said | August 29th 2010 @ 11:29am | Report comment
Hayden I’ve thought about why he didn’t use the bench because it did seem odd.
I think the reason are the following:
Barnes and Faiingaa not used because what was needed were game-breakers with pace at that stage, and however they had played before you would have to say Giteau and AAC were more likely to provide that in that final part of the match.
Sharpe the injury he got early on? If not then it would seem crazy to take him and not Mumm off.
Burgess could have won but equally lost the match! Genia was solid at least.
Remember it did seem as if the Wallabies were on the way to winning and all they had to do was keep doing the same thing, until AAC dropped that ball!
August 29th 2010 @ 11:56am
Cliff (Bishkek) said | August 29th 2010 @ 11:56am | Report comment
KPM – I like your last sentence and I agree – they were behind but appeared to be doing the right thing.
I only watched through the web – and for anyone interested “IRAQGOALS.COM”. Reasonable bit jumpy and breaky but reasonable.
As I see it as KPM – the Wallabies went missing in “brain power” in the last 20 to 30. They were running it and making breask or moving. Then mistakes. Also when Sharpe went off the lineouts did not function.
But when you consider that the Wallabies were leading by some 20 points – what happened.
I am convinced that this team is leaderless on the field – Elsom is not a captian – never has been. Maybe he leads by example but even professional rugby players need to be DRIVEN TO STRIVE. He should have been on his case again and again.
Sheek you might be a Deans Fan – but serious questions need to be asked. I am not saying SACK HIM – BUT ASK THE BLOODY QUESTIONS. Teams should not lose with that many points in front.
Congrats to the Saffas – and this is not an excuse – based on the points in front – and what should have been a DRIVEN TEAM – THE WALLABIES LOST IT – many tiems as has been stated mistakes when there was not pressure.
AAC’s lost ball was a very good tackle.
But with Deans I ask the questions:
We speak of the altitude – so why do we train as sea level for a week?
Mumm and Browen are not up to the standard – Mumm and Brown never have been
I agree – Cooper, Beale and JOC and Giteua in the same 15 is not an answer – Beale and Fullback and Cooper at 10
Giteau I still question – but why JOC when Lachie Turner was available and others
I understand that at altitude putting on McCalam (or is it McCalman) and Higgenbottom from the start – fitness is a point. But Deans bought McCalam on too late
Simmons was injured and not in the original so what happened – did Higgenbottom get injured – I was surprised by Simmons coming on?
Deans use of the bench was useless – Genia ran out of ideas – Burgess should have been on
THE OTHER THING – COOPER IS THE 10 – HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLING THE SHOTS – WIDE, WIDE AND WIDER.
WHY DID WE GO BACK TO ONE OUT
I HAVE SAID IT FOR A LONG TIME – THERE ARE NO “RUGBY BRAINS” ON THE FIELD.
August 29th 2010 @ 12:05pm
ohtani's jacket said | August 29th 2010 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
Iraqgoals uses the Project Vanilla stream at Ustream, which is a better quality stream.
August 29th 2010 @ 4:18pm
Just a Fan said | August 29th 2010 @ 4:18pm | Report comment
Stupid! How long do you think it is gonna be before they shut that link down now! Rather PM that info dont out it oin the open.
August 29th 2010 @ 12:14pm
kingplaymaker said | August 29th 2010 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
Cliff I would say it was probably fear of losing after such a good start.
When teams win consistently or are doing only as well as expected, they build up an inner beilef that takes them through tough periods in a match.
As the Wallabies have been underperforming for over a year now, they have lost the inner belief that comes from doing even reasonably well, and so in pressurized situations like this they get nervous and make mistakes.
August 29th 2010 @ 1:35pm
MOTHER TERESA said | August 29th 2010 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
KING,simply ask deans the reasons dont speculate when deans has told us its decision making;
many studies state that decisions at critical times speak of experience ,culture and dare i say coaching ability
August 29th 2010 @ 9:55am
damo said | August 29th 2010 @ 9:55am | Report comment
I thought the Wallabies did really well. Skill guts, courage and tries! If we still had a mainstream audience they would have enjoyed that one. But the “smarts” let them down.
And “smarts” most importantly includes being able to prioritise “doing the basics right”. Missed tackles, those 2 lineouts thrown away and AAC’s dropped ball near the end took a big toll on OZ hopes. Faingaa’s accidental off-side another one. Fatigue will always test intelligence at the end of a game.
The biggest thing is that the Wallabies THOUGHT they were DESTINED to win after their blistering 1st quarter. I thought the same while watching. But as good as they played they were outplayed in the end by a team that did more basics right at the right end of the game. Wallabies need more of an on field brain. Don’t mean to write them off. Basic mistakes aside the team played well – but their weakness at this top level of the game is smart skills, choices and selections.(ie replacements).