Ugly truth: Wallabies-Samoa post-mortem
Roar Guru By KingsofCommentary, 19 Jul 2011 KingsofCommentary is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Australia, IRB, Rugby Union, Rugby World Cup 2011, Samoa, wallabies
3,257 readsRelated coverage
Faith: the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. In other words, if you can see it and believe it, you can have it.
‘Faith’ defines the mindset of Samoa’s first XV who savaged a stonewalled Aussie outfit, that woke up this morning, feeling like they’d been run over by a big brown bus.
How else can you explain the giant Aussie superpower, being forced into submission by a little Pacific nation ranked tenth on the IRB’s list?
Because in theory, the second-ranked Wallabies were at least 30 points better than Samoa; on paper that is.
There was another profound aspect to Samoa’s approach to this game in the tangible outworking of their core belief.
And it was this. Nothing levels the playing field faster than pure unadulterated physical aggression. The proof; Samoa 32 over the Wallabies, 23.
If a side exerts such physical dominance to the point of creating fear in the minds of their opposition, the best game-plan, reputation and ‘team on paper’ is effectively screwed up and tossed out of the window.
The Samoans have always had a fierce defensive reputation. So have the Tongans, the other Pacific nation to have walloped the Wallabies back in 1973.
Every World Cup highlight-reel features a victim of an infamous Pacific torpedo. It’s all about the timing, although accuracy is often found wanting.
But not on this occasion. The Samoans couldn’t miss, their defensive radars so finely tuned that anything in green and gold that remotely looked like moving was effectively obliterated.
It was indeed a physical annihilation of epic proportions. Australia’s big men (and big egos) were cut down to size, literally and figuratively.
The shock-factor though, was that nobody saw the big brown bus coming. Too busy naval-gazing at their post-Super Rugby self-importance.
The proof of Aussie distain towards their Pacific challengers was in passing-up three easy penalty-goals in the first 20 minutes, which would have been understandable if they looked like scoring. But they didn’t.
And as the Samoans piled on the big hits and the points, disillusionment became increasingly apparent in the countenance of fifteen sorry Wallabies.
30,000 fans and confused Aussie commentators waited impatiently for the tide to turn.
As the game wound down, it became apparent that this tide was in fact a Samoan Tsunami, that grew bigger and bigger until the final whistle, at which stage the Wallabies were well and truly, dead and buried.
Sweet victory for Samoa. And for the Wallabies, well, roadkill.
Have you seen the new Wallabies jersey? Want one of your own? We're giving away a brand new 2013 Wallabies jersey to one lucky Roarer, click here to go in the running to win.
- Explore:
- Australia, IRB, Rugby Union, Rugby World Cup 2011, Samoa, wallabies
July 19th 2011 @ 6:17am
Osca said | July 19th 2011 @ 6:17am | Report comment
Excellent article, you hit the nail on the head when you said “Nothing levels the playing field faster than pure unadulterated physical aggression”. The difference was this time that Samoa played for the full 80 and never let their foot of Australias neck. Samoa sent a message out to the bigger nations in Rugby, cant wait for the RWC 2011
July 19th 2011 @ 7:41am
cookee said | July 19th 2011 @ 7:41am | Report comment
osca,cant help thinking what part the coaches on either side played in this fixture.
you mention the physical aggression of the samoans which was always going to be a given to everyone except deans it would seem.no mental stuff thrown in at the start.marvellous thinking coach.
mclean the samoan coach beaten the week before by tonga,GOSH and sydney uni exposed their defence 2 days before test.GOLLY.so it must have been their imports strung together rapidly with natural ability that won the test for them;little time for the coach to develop much you would think.
so if this logic is fair why cant the australian coach give his team the benefit of tactics to enable his rookies a chance to strut their stuff with a plan and confidence.now where are these guys heads?gone forever.
so if the reds can win a final maybe deans can emulate their approach or would this mean he is superfluous.
please enlighten me
July 19th 2011 @ 9:39am
soapit said | July 19th 2011 @ 9:39am | Report comment
completely agree, people forget that samoa outplayed england for an hour in the 03 world cup and just tired in the last 20. plus they didnt just go for the massive hits, just big hits with a straight defensive line, pretty intimidating.
July 19th 2011 @ 7:38am
Jerome said | July 19th 2011 @ 7:38am | Report comment
Like the article man. As the attender of a Samoan church I never thought I would see the definition of ‘faith’ used in a genuine rugby article! How befitting for Manu Samoa. Can they keep the faith for the World Cup tho???
July 19th 2011 @ 8:32am
Damo said | July 19th 2011 @ 8:32am | Report comment
Fair questions Cookee.
I get a sense that Deans is feeling pressure like never before since he took the job.
July 19th 2011 @ 8:37am
sheek said | July 19th 2011 @ 8:37am | Report comment
Australia has two historical weaknesses that they struggle to overcome consistently – a dominant scrum & an aggressive contest at the breakdown.
The periods of our strong scrum tend to be like those islands dotted sparingly in the vast Pacific ocean – 1929 to 30; 1933 to 34; 1947 to 49; 1963 to 65; 1984 to 86; 1991 to 94; 1998 to 2001. Perhaps occasionally in the 70s.
While we’ve also had some outstanding fetchers – Breckinridge, Windon, Davis, Price, Cornelsen, Poidevin, Roche, Miller, Wilson, Smith & now Pocock – physical presence at the breakdown hasn’t been as important as a quick clearance to the backs.
Ah, the backs! The problem with Australian rugby is our love of fancy, extravagant backline play. Correction, the problem with Australian rugby is that we too often put too low a value on the set pieces because of our love of fancy, extravagant backline play.
Consistent, dominant rugby is about winning the contest at the scrum, lineout & tackle. Only then can you worry about fancy, extravagant backline play. We simply don’t put enough of a value on these things, & then wonder why our rugby is so often inconsistent.
Australia is a bit like the French, but less so. We’re uncomfortable with the favourites tag, & love being the underdogs. It can be frustrating reconciling this fact.
Another thing lost in all the backbiting over the Samoa loss however, is this – there are something like 13 test matches for the Wallabies before the world cup final in Auckland this year. Each test is a journey towards the final destination. It is not a destination itself, but a stop-off.
Okay, the first stop-off proved to be a turn-off. I would be waiting until the Wallabies have played their quota of matches before the world cup starts, & then look at how we’re placed. In recent times, the world cup winner only emerged later in the tournament itself (1995, 99 & 2007 for example).
However, patience is a difficult thing to manage in this “instant gratification” world we live in today…..
July 19th 2011 @ 9:22am
Force Fan said | July 19th 2011 @ 9:22am | Report comment
I wonder how many of those armchair critics like Campese were critical of the wallabies by playing the same old tired guys each week. can’t please them all can you.
July 19th 2011 @ 10:19am
Warren said | July 19th 2011 @ 10:19am | Report comment
Sheek, couldn’t agree more. Rugby as a back line player’s spectacle is overrated in my opinion. Test matches must be won first and foremost. This is always done up front, with commitment from the pack, particularly the tight 5. Set piece ball must be stable, and this then gives the opportunity for the loose trio to range. Until you start to do this in a Test you don’t own the right to play expansive, “attractive” rugby. Taking 9 points on offer early on would have been my way of establishing some control.
July 19th 2011 @ 12:55pm
Nicol'arse said | July 19th 2011 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
Nice post Sheek. And I largely agree with your sentiments. Although, given Deans is a kiwi, I am surprised that he didn’t put the wind clean up those fellas at half time after they had been so effectively bashed for the first 40mins.
I’ve seen the AB’s lose a number of times but I have NEVER seen them capitulate. Not once. Unlike the Wallabies who have played the “beta” team on too many occasions for it to be considered a rare occurrence.
My point/question is this: if this indeed a trait of Australian rugby (ie lacking aggressiveness at the breakdown to sometimes get beaten up by other supposedly lesser teams – think England) and Deans’ pedigree has no room for such lameness, why on earth don’t these guys come out of the halftime break breathing fire?
He should be cracking the whip and demanding more mongrel from the pigs so the fanciful backs get more opportunity to do what they do as well (or often better) than any other backline in the world.
But instead he continues with the selection of cream puffs like Mumm and Alexander and for that I think he has to shoulder some of the responsibility for these ‘soft’ performances too.
July 19th 2011 @ 1:22pm
gary said | July 19th 2011 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
i’m with the Sheek, he has shown a good sense of Wallaby history and pinpointed the problem, UP TP A POINT. Go the whole hog here and complete the thought process – Australian Rugby lacks MONGREL because it’s gene pool is inadequate. Ray Price, who had he stayed in Rugby would have dwarfed talk of Poido and Miller etc, was a lad from Dundas Valley (housing commission) but these sort of blokes were not ‘Pukka’ enough for the Establishment based in the leafy suburbs. His brother Don was equal to Mark Loane but obviously wasn’t a good enough student and never got a cap ! The Wallaby gene pool is too soft because Rugby doesn’t reach out to the Fibros and has and will ever suffer the results. The nobs running the game cannot relate to a kid from St Marys whose dad might be a factory worker etc, but that kid is just the type we need to fill the tight five void we currently have. in the 60′s and 70′s junior rugby in the Parramatta area absolutely thrived and the nobs from the leafy suburbs didn’t have a clue what they had and lost a great opportunity, wake up you nob heads the answer is just in front of your noses if you can extract them out of your glass of Chardonay for a few minutes !
July 19th 2011 @ 8:44am
Hoy said | July 19th 2011 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Anyone who thought the Samoans were 30 points in the hole before starting is kidding themselves. If I had known they were 13 to 1 I would have backed them to the hilt, thinking they would win.
On paper Wallabies 30 points better? They aren’t villagers anymore, gathered together. They are all professional players. They have been together for the Pacific Nations Tourny, and while they had mixed results, they were together several weeks longer than Australia.
It annoys me that people still think the PI nations are easy beats. There was no respect in the lead up commentary by Ken, there was no respect by the Wallaby players, and we got dealt with accordingly. But to say that team that we put out on the field was 30 points better on paper is just a blatant lie in my opinion.
July 19th 2011 @ 9:27am
sheek said | July 19th 2011 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Hoy,
I keep hearing the Aussies showed disrespect to the Samoans by playing so few of their first team. Was it really disrespect, or under-estimation? There is a huge difference.
It’s a long season, & Deans is entitled to give as many players as possible an opportunity to demonstrate what they’re capable of. You don’t win the world cup in July, you win it October (or whenever the final is held).
Are the Boks being disrespectful for leaving 20-odd leading players behind in South Africa, or is this smart forward planning?
BTW, Samoa sent a ‘development’ team to the 4N Pacific Islands tournament recently (won by Japan), saving their best players in Sydney for the Wallabies’ test.
Were the Samoans also disrespectful to the 4N tournament for not sending their best players…..???
July 19th 2011 @ 9:33am
Hoy said | July 19th 2011 @ 9:33am | Report comment
Sheek, I would say it was disrespect by the players, not the named team. The players on the field did not respect the opposition at all, and it showed in their play.
July 19th 2011 @ 9:46am
sheek said | July 19th 2011 @ 9:46am | Report comment
Hoy – you would have thought that at 0-10, the ‘penny’ might have dropped for the Wallaby players.
I’m not sure the Wallabies are as good as many of us wish/hope they are. We’ll certainly have a better idea after the Boks match…..
July 19th 2011 @ 10:31am
cookee said | July 19th 2011 @ 10:31am | Report comment
sheek the penny should have dropped for deans before this game;HOW SLOW IS HE?
July 19th 2011 @ 11:04am
Capital said | July 19th 2011 @ 11:04am | Report comment
The penny dropped at the 55 minute mark when they couldnt’ dominate and Samoa weren’t tiring.
The penny splashed when it started to rain.
And the penny clanked very loudly when the fulll time siren went – although the penny couldn’t ne heard because the Samoan supporters and players were too damn boisterous
July 19th 2011 @ 11:06am
Capital said | July 19th 2011 @ 11:06am | Report comment
The disrespect was our captain not taking points to build momentum.
No points with dominant field position (sorry – reminds me of the Brumbies Rebels game) and no points to show for it? Braindead.
And that disrespects the braindead.
July 19th 2011 @ 9:35am
Ian Whitchurch said | July 19th 2011 @ 9:35am | Report comment
When you play development sides, you risk losing. Thats sport
Guess this match means Australia need a revenge match against Samoa, or do we wait another decade for that ?
July 19th 2011 @ 10:33am
cookee said | July 19th 2011 @ 10:33am | Report comment
NO NOT DISRESPECTFUL COS LIKE DEANS THEY LOST TOO
July 19th 2011 @ 9:29am
Who Needs Melon said | July 19th 2011 @ 9:29am | Report comment
Yes nice article. 25 thumbs up already and only 7 responses! You got a big family?
July 19th 2011 @ 9:36am
allblackfan said | July 19th 2011 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Oh, just for the record.
Fiji beat the Wallabies back in 1954-55 so Sunday’s win completes the trifecta! ARU was almost broke so Fiji sent a team which played a style of rugby that brought the crowds back to the game and saved the ARU from bankruptcy.
July 19th 2011 @ 9:47am
sheek said | July 19th 2011 @ 9:47am | Report comment
ABF – very true!
July 19th 2011 @ 2:51pm
nige imrie said | July 19th 2011 @ 2:51pm | Report comment
Thankyou for remembering our flying fijians, that was the day of our great, Levula,the man who use to run with a pump action, knees lifted so high that it was scary to try to tackle him. However back to the game v Samoa, they were brutal, it was great to watch, for once the brute force combined with technique,a defense that equalled attack, thankyou Sydney university for the training run prior to test match.
We have the ability in the South Pacific and to finally see it here at Wallaby HQ is awesome, we have all been waiting for this for a long time. You can take all the island players you want, the AB’s and the Wallabies, we will keep producing better players, Sitileki Timani, you should have gone home and played for Tonga because after this you will never play test rugby again, Samo was the same , a handful of tests then into limbo, now he is back or is he, McCalman has taken his spot this week, with Elsom pretending to be a test player and captain, Higginbotham should be at six, Deans your selections and your loyalty issues need to be reassessed, the captain is Horwell and you appear to be blind.
Your lack of respect for Samoa is what galvanised the Samoans, thought you were a deeper thinker.
July 19th 2011 @ 12:08pm
Blinky Bill of Bellingen said | July 19th 2011 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
I’m looking for positives here.
As depressed as I am about the way we played, I’m hoping like hell that out of the Samoan furnace that Robbie exposed these players to, will come one or two Wallaby diamonds.
Go the Wallabies!!!!!!!!!!
July 19th 2011 @ 3:40pm
Handles O'Love said | July 19th 2011 @ 3:40pm | Report comment
Postives include
– better now than QF of the RWC
– bye bye Matt Giteau
– bye bye Nathan Sharpe, Matt Hodgson
July 19th 2011 @ 12:31pm
Tala said | July 19th 2011 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
Great article! I like how you’ve put it “unadulterated physical aggression” and “faith” – the two weapons that Samoa have and will always have in their arsenal to defeat the odds especially when one of the giants of world rugby does not take any notice of their opponent because they feel victory is a given. As a former Manu Samoa representative who played in a golden era of the 1990s including the ’95 world cup I am so proud of Samoa’s win on Sunday which is arguably one of our countries greatest sporting achievements. Imagine if Samoa had the resources the super powers have at their disposal and the players available to choose from if eligibility rules were relaxed in world cup year? A team including Orene Ai’i, Rudi Wulf, Lelia Masaga, Benson Stanley, Casey Laulala, Robert Fruean, Jerry Collins, Mose Tuiali’i, Chris Masoe, Victor Vito, Brad Mika, John Schwalger, Neemia Tialata would certainly add experience and power to the current team. Go the Manu!
July 19th 2011 @ 12:37pm
Tristan Rayner said | July 19th 2011 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
Nice to have a Manu Samoa player on The Roar. Welcome Tala.
July 19th 2011 @ 1:02pm
GrecoRoman said | July 19th 2011 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
This is a big issue Tala – player eligibility rules for Pacific Islanders. There have been a number of discussions on this site about it. Here is an example:
http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/02/10/tonga-pm-blasts-unfair-world-cup/
What’s your opinion on it?
July 19th 2011 @ 1:24pm
Tala said | July 19th 2011 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
Yes there’s been a whole lot of arguments around eligibility for years and some valid points on both sides. If I’m to look at it closely then I think players who have had limited caps for their preferred country of choice, who have not established themselves as certainties should definitely be allowed to play for the likes of Samoa, Tonga or Fiji. In terms of entertainment alone relaxing the rules would certainly make the world cup a greater spectacle especially if your top 13 teams are at full strength i.e. 3 x pacific island teams, home unions, tri nations unlike the netball where it was always a 2 horse race between Oz and NZ.
July 19th 2011 @ 2:42pm
mudskipper said | July 19th 2011 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
I recon if you have fewer than 10 caps you should be eligible to play for the country of birth in a RWC year. Note not like the world cricket country of heritage. If you choose to play for your country of residence, that’s good also. The only nations disadvantaged are the small nations and that’s not sporting now is it gentlemen.
July 19th 2011 @ 5:05pm
GrecoRoman said | July 19th 2011 @ 5:05pm | Report comment
A lot of the Samoan and Tongan players were born in New Zealand and are products of their schools and provincial rep systems. Your suggestion wouldn’t really change things much at all.
July 19th 2011 @ 10:24pm
Emric said | July 19th 2011 @ 10:24pm | Report comment
I think he meant to say heritage – I agree the islands would benefit if the IRB relaxed the rules in their case.
July 19th 2011 @ 10:30pm
GrecoRoman said | July 19th 2011 @ 10:30pm | Report comment
Fair enough. Then what about the situation I mention a few posts down? Can we then tighten the rules in relation to the whole ‘grandparent’ thing? I can understand first generation kids of migrants, but some of the links that the ‘Italian’ players have are pretty tenuous. Are they the ‘Azzurri’ or the ‘Azzurri-Argies’? Scotland are prone to do that with its so-called ‘Kilted Kiwis’.
July 19th 2011 @ 1:50pm
robert said | July 19th 2011 @ 1:50pm | Report comment
the current rules work in favour of the p.i nations, especially samoa. it’s under these rules that we managed to secure quality players like tusi and george pisi, paul williams, kahn fotualii and others..
as long as the all blacks focus on key players carter, mccaw, nonu, jane and others..other young pacific island talents slip through the system and go to europe where they will opt for manu samoa..
as more money is offered in europe – and japan – the p.i talent will leave nz – and australian – rugby earlier..
in 1991 when there were no eligibiliy rules, samoa’s success at the world cup resulted in the stripping of its top ranks by the nzru..john schuster, alama ieremia, frank bunce, steven bachop, pat lam, junior paramore, gone like that..puff
July 19th 2011 @ 4:06pm
Jerry said | July 19th 2011 @ 4:06pm | Report comment
Couple of corrections, Robert.
John Schuster played for the AB’s prior to the 91 World Cup. He’d already gone to league by that stage and had yet to actually play for Samoa (he did subsequently).
I don’t think Junior Paramore ever actually played for the AB’s.
July 19th 2011 @ 3:27pm
nige imrie said | July 19th 2011 @ 3:27pm | Report comment
The Law on player eligibility should be simple; If you are Samoan, Fijian or French and have been playing for the AB’s or the Wallabies and are then overlooked for selection concistently and your services are no longer required then that nation should be able to release you from your contracts and sign you off, if your country of birth then requires your services you should be eligible to play for them.
Take Rokocoko, Samo, Nono, Soi’alo, the AB’s or Wallabies don;t require their services sign them off, they atr then eligible to play for their home nations. It may be a corporate game but it is still a game, and people want to enjoy the game,we can still sell the rugby brand if Samo can play for Australia then Fiji, Nonu for AB then Samoa, what a sight, simple, legals are easily remedied.
July 19th 2011 @ 3:40pm
GrecoRoman said | July 19th 2011 @ 3:40pm | Report comment
Yes Nige – I like the idea of selling the Rugby brand that way. However, there should be a period of time specified. 2 years since you last played your test for instance. As has been pointed out – we don’t want a situation like RL where the rules are just willy-nilly and you can represent one country one year and then another the following.
July 19th 2011 @ 8:11pm
Michael Clark said | July 19th 2011 @ 8:11pm | Report comment
This debate goes around in circles because many contributors fail to acknowledge or understand that most of these players are born and develop in NZ or Australia. The arrival of professional rugby has greatly benefitted the island nations, as they have been able to recruit fully developed professional players who have not been selected by their home nation but who qualify for Samoa, Fiji, Tonga etc by dint of heritage and dual citizenship rights. These players are supplemented by others who are now playing in the European and Japanese competitions. Only a small number come out of the island villages.
It would not be fair or equitable to change the rules to allow players who have completed a representative career for their home nation to then be selected by the land of their ethnic heritage for a second international career. It couldn’t be done just for a handful of NZ or Australian players with island heritage without also applying to others who fit the same criteria. That would lead to chaos, as all the Southern hemisphere rugby powers are nations of immigrants with almost every player
(excepting Maori and Aboriginal players) eligible to be selected by country of ethnic origin. For instance, should Jimmy Cowan be eligible to be selected for Scotland when his All Black days are over?
July 19th 2011 @ 8:19pm
GrecoRoman said | July 19th 2011 @ 8:19pm | Report comment
Ok. So what about the large number of Argies that have been poached by the Italians and are no longer eligible to play for their homeland simply because of this ‘grandparent’ rule that exists? Not disagreeing with you btw, just something you might consider as I find the eligibility rules to be all over the place.
July 19th 2011 @ 10:39pm
Michael Clark said | July 19th 2011 @ 10:39pm | Report comment
Ma’a and Rodney are NZ born – as are most of the Island players mentioned in these threads. A point overlooked or ignored by most commenters…
July 19th 2011 @ 11:18pm
Lion Red said | July 19th 2011 @ 11:18pm | Report comment
Rodney So’oialo born 3 October 1979 in Moto’otua, Samoa. Jerry Collins born 4 November 1980 in Apia, Samoa. Mils Muliaina born born 31 July 1980 Salesi, Samoa. Joe Rokocoko born 6 June 1983, Nadi Fiji. Sitiveni Waica Sivivatu born 19 April 1982 Suva, Fiji.
July 20th 2011 @ 1:29am
GrecoRoman said | July 20th 2011 @ 1:29am | Report comment
Mils Muliaina is a Leo? That really surprises me. I would have sworn he was a Pisces.
July 19th 2011 @ 3:16pm
nige imrie said | July 19th 2011 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
Bro,
we are so proud of our Samoan bothers, we have dreamed of an encounter of this calibre for so long, back in Fiji we have dreamed of the perfect game, we beat Wales and that was one for the talanoa around the kava bowl, but you boys have put the icing on the cake,
It was the perfect game, defence equalled offence in intensity, the option taking was straight out of the text book plus a bit of Samoan flavour. It was the sheer physical nature, the controlled aggression, the set piece was awesome, everything was controlled, these Wallabies and their coach forget that the Samoans are professionals,you don’t get selected in a French top 14 team unless you are good at what you do, they could buy anyone!
Deans lack of respect for the Samoan rugby team is what galvanised the team, as a Pacific Islander I want to thank the team for making us proud, this is just the begining, you will take them out of the RWC in the quarter finals. Vinaka from all the gang in Fiji.