Baa Baas v Wallabies – lambs to the slaughterhouse
Roar Pro Related coverage
Even watching the Wallabies – Barbarians clash from over sixteen thousand kilometres away, you could feel the immense sense of relief from the majority of the fifty thousand strong crowd at Twickenham after referee Romain Poite blew his whistle for full time.
The Wallabies had just inflicted one of the heaviest, and most embarassing, defeats on the Barbarians with an eight tries to one rout.
At a quick glance at the experienced, but ageing, line-up of the Barbarians, there was optimism they would provide Robbie Deans and the Wallabies a stern test.
Put simply, the Barbarians outfit was a disgrace.
Watching O’Connor and co. slice their way through the crumbling Baa Baas defence reminded me of watching Australia pummel Namibia at the 2003 World Cup.
It was painful to watch and the groans from the crowd grew louder with each Wallabies try.
One has to wonder why coach Graham Henry selected five All Blacks players, who were all at the World Cup, for this match. As Sky Sports commentator Stuart Barnes remarked, these five players had achieved the “rugby equivalent of climbing Mount Everest”.
Even a World Cup-winning coach like Henry couldn’t possibly motivate these players to perform after achieving such a monumental feat in New Zealand less than a month ago.
And then there were the other veterans (Perugini, Shaw, White, Rabeni, Bortolami, Stringer) who were simply out-run, out-muscled and out-enthused by a full-strength Wallabies team.
These players all passed their peaks a long time ago and should never have been selected for the Barbarians in 2011.
From the wreckage that was this Barbarians match, only a handful of players (Matfield, Mortlock, Tomkins, Kahui) emerged with their reputations unscathed.
For the Barbarians to be competitive in future fixtures, they must somehow negotiate the top players to be given a one-week release by their professional clubs in Europe.
If not, the Barbarians coach must hand out his invitations wisely, even selecting a few players from the so-called ‘minnow’ nations who don’t play in the top-tier leagues.
Players that immediately spring to mind include Todd Clever (USA), Denis Simplikevich (Russia) and Michael Leitch (Japan). They would relish the opportunity and play their hearts out, guaranteed.
The next Barbarians coach must not only respect the opposition, but the Barbarians itself, and field a side that won’t get ripped to shreds.
For on the weekend there was no passion. No commitment. No resistance.
Indeed they were like lambs sent to the slaughterhouse.
Sport, all day long. Does this sound too good to be true? We're searching for a Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. If you're a sales star who doesn't mind a hit, kick, throw, or cycle, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
- Explore:
- Barbarians, Rugby Union, wallabies
November 28th 2011 @ 9:17am
Mike said | November 28th 2011 @ 9:17am | Report comment
“Players that immediately spring to mind include Todd Clever (USA), Denis Simplikevich (Russia) and Michael Leitch (Japan). They would relish the opportunity and play their hearts out, guaranteed.”
Its not a bad idea. It would certainly generate a lot of interest, and their national teams would be glad of the exposure also.
November 28th 2011 @ 11:03am
Jock M said | November 28th 2011 @ 11:03am | Report comment
Seems like the Barbarians is the latest casualty of the professional era.
No money no play.
The money men told us that money would make no difference!
November 28th 2011 @ 11:17am
Bakkies said | November 28th 2011 @ 11:17am | Report comment
Toeava was atrocious. Cipriani had no real game time since June.
A strange outcome since their recent wins against the ABs and South Africa.
November 28th 2011 @ 12:20pm
SAMURAI said | November 28th 2011 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
I didn’t watch those two games but maybe they had a much stronger side back then, and it wasn’t staged right after a World Cup?
November 29th 2011 @ 11:45am
Bakkies said | November 29th 2011 @ 11:45am | Report comment
They played the Boks after the 2007 RWC and beat them convincingly. They seem to play better with a few Aussie players. Giteau would have given them more spark.
November 28th 2011 @ 12:44pm
Justin said | November 28th 2011 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
Where do you get this rubbish from? One result? Have you even bothered to check the results of Baa Baa matches against international sides over the past few years.
Some people have no idea…
November 28th 2011 @ 11:07am
mace 22 said | November 28th 2011 @ 11:07am | Report comment
If they had picked all their players from the so called secound tier nations, they would have had more heart than the lot that ran out on saturday. The only ones that gave any sign that they wanted to be their were the ones mentioned above (matfield, kahui, tomkins and mortlock ). Not a fitting way to send off one of the best locks of the proffesional era..
November 28th 2011 @ 11:16am
Mike said | November 28th 2011 @ 11:16am | Report comment
Agreed
November 28th 2011 @ 11:45am
Warren said | November 28th 2011 @ 11:45am | Report comment
Agree Samurai and all above. Does anyone here know why Tomkins was selcted? Is he about to defect to Union?
November 28th 2011 @ 12:03pm
Mike said | November 28th 2011 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
Warren,
There has been much *speculation* that Tomkins is about to defect, but no hard evidence. Tomkins went out of his way to state before the game that he has just signed a 3-year contract with Wigan, intends to honour it, and has no particular intention to play rugby.
I think we should take it at face value. A Barbarians team traditionally includes at least one uncapped player, and this is not the first time they have picked someone across code. Tomkins seems to have treated it as an interesting experience, and as an honour.
He played as well as he could and respected the traditions of the very exclusive club that invited him. Some rugby players could learn from his example.
November 28th 2011 @ 12:22pm
Warren said | November 28th 2011 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
Thanks Mike. I agree that Tomkins was one of the more committed Barbarians on Sat night and he seems to have a good attitude. However, it would have been nice to see an uncapped Union player selected.
November 29th 2011 @ 6:04am
kingplaymaker said | November 29th 2011 @ 6:04am | Report comment
Like Robbie Fruean.
November 28th 2011 @ 11:46am
Scotty said | November 28th 2011 @ 11:46am | Report comment
The Beeb had a list of the last fixtures Wallabies vs BaaBaas and there have been quite a few thumpings handed out by the Wallabies in the professional era. Maybe the scratch team nature of them plays right into our traditional strengths – defence and fast clinical backs? I’ll always support the Barabarians concept, and like you guys think the time has come to cast the net a little wider and invite players who will give thier all on the day, and in the Barbarians (running) spirit.
November 28th 2011 @ 11:50am
Bakkies said | November 28th 2011 @ 11:50am | Report comment
That Barbarians side would have ran the Boks close. Don’t forget lads that there was a full fixture list in the AP, Pro 12, Pro D2 and Top 14. A lot of tier 2 players play in the Pro D2 and Top 14 and wouldn’t get releases
November 28th 2011 @ 12:01pm
Nathan of Perth said | November 28th 2011 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
“Todd Clever (USA)” <– Reckoned that guy had tremendous presence. I'm not full bottle on how much quality he has but I think he's a great ambassador for the game in the US, has the right sort of presence.
November 28th 2011 @ 12:15pm
Bakkies said | November 28th 2011 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
and wasting his talent by leaving the Lions to play in Japan. Should be playing in Europe at least
November 28th 2011 @ 12:12pm
john griffiths said | November 28th 2011 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
The Ba Bas were bored and boring. What a waste of money. Absolute rubbish.
November 28th 2011 @ 12:30pm
Seru said | November 28th 2011 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
There was Robbie Fruen
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
November 28th 2011 @ 9:17pm
mfree said | November 28th 2011 @ 9:17pm | Report comment
graham henrys ba baas was absolutely second rate lol russia performed better than that against the wallabies in the rwc, shame shame shame. g henry blames the limited time they had for prep but a score line like that there is no excuse.
November 29th 2011 @ 11:48am
Bakkies said | November 29th 2011 @ 11:48am | Report comment
Graham Henry is not a coach that seems to gel a side from scratch. See the 2001 Lions and the issues some players had with him. He was a complete pain on the tour DVD in team meetings in comparison to McGeechan and Telfer in 1997 and 2009.
November 28th 2011 @ 10:58pm
Dublin Dave said | November 28th 2011 @ 10:58pm | Report comment
The Barbarians are an anachronism in modern rugby. And I say this as someone who is keen to preserve from its amateur days as much as possible of what made rugby a different and special sport. I despair of those whose vision for the future of the game is framed by concepts like “brand” and “exposure” and “global expansion”.
The Barbarians were originally formed as an all-stars touring team for usually wealthy young men to spend their Easter Holidays “Messing about playing rugger” in the heartland of Welsh rugby. Selection was by invitation and reputation. Typically, the players came from the national sides of the Four Home Countries but there was always a commitment to include uncapped unsung heroes as well.
When International Touring sides like the Wallabies, Springboks or All Blacks toured these islands, there soon developed the tradition of the Barbarians playing the “Fifth Test” at the end of the tour. But until the 1980s the Barbarians team was always made up of players from the four home nations. The Baa Baas were in effect the Lions taking on the visitors in a one-off test at home.
That gave the fixture some identity and some meaning. “We” were ganging up on “them”, the visitors, in a way that typically was only possible every six years or so or however frequently tours down south used to be back in the day.
Somewhere along the way some genius dreamed up the idea that there would be significant support for a general team of “All Stars” drawn from around the globe to play one off matches against major teams. By this stage, the idea is met with apathy if not hostility.
Only one side cares when the Barbarians play now: namely, the opposition. Who are the Barbarians’ “Fans”? Who cares whether they win or not? What was it about the Barbarians’ team that gave someone like me, say, any reason to have an interest in their fate?
Sure, the Aussies can say “we took on a team of star players and wupped them! How good are we?” But the wiser among them will know they are kidding themselves if they think that.
Watching sport is a vicarious business. Spectators, or at least the vast majority of them, need an emotional attachment to a team. It’s not a question of merit. It’s motivation.
Either the Barbarians go back to a more narrow representation for these big matches or they die.
November 29th 2011 @ 5:38am
STEELBEATLE (from Canada) said | November 29th 2011 @ 5:38am | Report comment
Dublin Dave,
Great analysis – couldn’t have expressed it better myself.
November 29th 2011 @ 7:27am
sheek said | November 29th 2011 @ 7:27am | Report comment
Well done David,
I support you wholeheartedly, especially against those concepts “brand”, “exposure” & “global expansion”.
The Babas were like rugby’s version of the Harlem Globetrotters I suppose, but a bit more serious. Although I got to see the HGs close up as a young guy, & despite the fun, they could really, really play some awesome basketball.
The Babas provided very stiff opposition to touring sides from Australia, New Zealand & South Africa, playing against one of the 3 every 2-3 years or so.
The first ‘traditional’ Babas international game against the tourists was against the Wallabies in 1947/48. Nick Shehadie, the Wallabies lock come prop, made tours in 1947/48 & 1957/58. He made history in 1957/58 being honoured with a place in the Babas against his own team, after playing on the opposite side 10 years previously.
Apart from Shehadie, the first time the Babas invited players from outside the ‘home unions’ occurred in 1978, when the brilliant French flankers Jean-Pierre Rives & Jean-Claude Skrela were invited to play against the touring All Blacks.
Against the 1984 grand slam winning Wallabies, Frenchmen Serge Blanco (at fullback) & Jerome Gallion (at scrumhalf) added Gaul flair to the Babas in an enthralling contest. The Wallabies won this enticing encounter 37-30 (6 tries to 5) which featured David Campese’s famous “in-out, zig-zag” run against the hapless Welshman Robert Ackerman.
There was a tradition of the Babas to always select one uncapped player in their team, usually someone of the verge of national selection. In the famous 1973 Babas team, all the players had toured NZ & Australia the previous year, bar the uncapped Englishman lock Bob Wilkinson, flanker Tom David & flyhalf Phil Bennett.
For posterity, the team was: JPR. Williams(W), D.Duckham(E), J.Dawes(W-c), M.Gibson(I), JC. Bevan(W), P.Bennett(W), G.Edwards(W), D.Quinnell(W), F.Slattery(I), T.David(W), WJ. McBride(I), R.Wilkinson(E), S.Carmichael(S), J.Pullin(E), R.McLoughlin(I).
The Babas won this famous encounter 23-11 (4 tries to two).
I love the concept of both the Barbarians & Lions, & may they both survive the ravishes of the marketeers & carpetbaggers.
November 30th 2011 @ 10:55pm
Dublin Dave said | November 30th 2011 @ 10:55pm | Report comment
Always a dangerous thing to try and “out-anorak” the Sheek but just a minor point: Phil Bennett whose twinkling toes set up the movement that led to that marvellous try by Gareth Edwards had already won a few caps for Wales by the time of that match.
Granted he was not then the established Welsh Fly Half, although he would make that position his own over the subsequent years but then Barry John had only retired the previous season. I think Bennett made history in the then Five Nations by becoming the first player in that tournament to be capped as a replacement in 1969. Such people hadn’t been allowed hitherto.
I think Tommy David won a few caps for Wales as a flanker later on, although he had some tough competition in the Welsh back row at the time.
Not sure if Wilkinson ever got a cap for England.
November 29th 2011 @ 9:04am
Mike said | November 29th 2011 @ 9:04am | Report comment
“Only one side cares when the Barbarians play now: namely, the opposition. Who are the Barbarians’ “Fans”? Who cares whether they win or not? What was it about the Barbarians’ team that gave someone like me, say, any reason to have an interest in their fate?”
Or the 51,000 fans who went to the match, or the many many more who watched it. You don’t like the concept – we get it. That doesn’t mean that others don’t.
“Sure, the Aussies can say “we took on a team of star players and wupped them! How good are we?” But the wiser among them will know they are kidding themselves if they think that.”
Do you have the slightest skerrick of evidence that the Aussies think that? No, didn’t think so. So why are you making up fantasy stories?
“Either the Barbarians go back to a more narrow representation for these big matches or they die.”
There is a third alternative, that your sour comments are seen for what they are. No concept turns on one game, and the barbarians are no different. They happened to lose this match – big deal. They happened to win their last six matches, all against top-10 sides. In each case they got respectable crowds (or better), and good TV figures as compared to any other match. They are doing fine.
November 30th 2011 @ 11:17pm
Dublin Dave said | November 30th 2011 @ 11:17pm | Report comment
As the French general said when tasting margarine for the first time: “C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas le beurre!”
Barbarians games are not real matches. They are exhibitions. And why we need “exhbiitions” in these days of saturated coverage is beyond me.
I sound a note of caution that the powers that be see such events as the future of the game because they will kill much of what is great about it. The Barbarians used to be a great concept in years gone by. But that was in a completely different context. That was when the game was amateur, there were relatively few international matches. There were no international club competitions. The game was a comparitive rarity and pulling an all-stars team together, from a fairly tight pool of players, had a certain excitement about it. In thse days of Heineken Cups, World Cups, Super 14s or 16s or whatever it is now, the allure is dimming.
Let’s say the Australians DIDN’T thnk they had beaten a world class team of stars taken from the pick of the players around the world. What the hell was the point of the game in that case? At least when they wup Scotland or Ireland by 30 odd points (like they used to be able to do
) they could say “Well. We beat the best that another country could put out against us”
But the Barbarians? What are they for? What’s the point?
I don’t know any more.
December 1st 2011 @ 10:55am
Mike said | December 1st 2011 @ 10:55am | Report comment
I think only those who appreciate the value of tradition could understand the appeal of the barbarians. Those who see nil value in tradition will be mystified as to why the BaaBaas continue to get fixtures against top-10 sides, and why fans continue to go to their matches and watch them on TV. But the undeniable fact is that they do and they will continue to do so. You may be right that the number of fans is less, but if they are paying their own way, does that matter?
“The game was a comparitive rarity and pulling an all-stars team together, from a fairly tight pool of players, had a certain excitement about it.”
I don’t think this was ever the aim of the Barbarians, although I agree they often are entertaining.
“In thse days of Heineken Cups, World Cups, Super 14s or 16s or whatever it is now, the allure is dimming.”
I can’t comment – but assuming that is true, does it matter? By comparison, the Bledisloe Cup is now somewhat overshadowed by the Tri-Nations, but it remains of great importance to fans in both Aust and NZ, and I can’t see that changing.
“Let’s say the Australians DIDN’T thnk they had beaten a world class team of stars taken from the pick of the players around the world. What the hell was the point of the game in that case?”
A fair question. But I would be suprised if the Australians ever thought they were playing a top team. Firstly, Barbarian FC has never made it a priority to choose the pick of world players. Secondly, the Australians knew when they negotiated the match that Euro clubs probably weren’t going to release their players, and they also knew it was straight after RWC. But they went ahead anyway.
December 1st 2011 @ 10:19pm
Dublin Dave said | December 1st 2011 @ 10:19pm | Report comment
“I think only those who appreciate the value of tradition could understand the appeal of the barbarians. Those who see nil value in tradition will be mystified”
I reckon that most of the people who took an interest in this game did so because of the tradition and history of the Barbarians. It takes a while for traditions to die out but die out they most certainly do when they become irrelevant. Don’t get me wrong. I’m all in favour of tradition and am passionate about preserving most of what makes rugby’s tradition a great one. But we have to recognise what is worth preserving, or what is possible preserving, and what it is time to let go.
Traditions are only worth preserving as long as they are relevant. Otherwise they become a focus for resentment and ridicule. Let’s take two examples.
There is still a tradition in Ireland (and probably still in Britain, although its years since I lived there) of each team giving three rousing cheers for the opposition at the end of the game. Now this is an old-fashioned upper-crust gentleman’s-club hooray-henry like ritual but we insist that the kids playing mini rugby keep it on. Even though, cool 21st century dudes that they are, most of them balk at it initially.
But it remains relevant. It’s important. Because ours is a physical contact game where hard knocks can be given and received, sometimes inadvertently. It’s vital that what goes on the pitch stays on the pitch and is then forgotten about. The “three cheers” tradition embodies that sentiment. It’s still relevant and that’s why it endures.
Now take another example: There is by now a widely ridiculed ritual, confined to the upper classes of society, that at the end of a formal evening meal a bottle of port is passed around the table; the direction in which it is passed must be rigorously maintained, cigars are served and most importantly ladies must leave the room.
In the 1990s in England there was something of a controversy in the Conservative Party, the toffs party, when the wife of a leading politician dug her heels in and said she was no longer going to tolerate this nonsense. Why should women repair to the drawing room to talk about children and sewing while the men stayed behind getting pissed and talking about important things they didn’t want their wives to hear about?
“Tradition!” trumpeted papers like the Daily Telegraph. What was the Conservative Party coming to when the wife of a former Chancellor was behaving like a stroppy socialist?
A letter writer to that paper shone some light on the history of the tradition. Back in the day, after a long meal with several courses of wine, it became very necessary to pay attention to, shall we say “output” as well as “input”. Most fine dining rooms had a piece of furniture containing a large chamber pot. This was fished out at the opportune time, namely when the port was passed. The port bottle went in one direction atop the table; the chamber pot went in the other direction underneath.
In these circumstances, the ladies were usually only too pleased to be given an excuse to leave!
This tradition became unnecessary once Mr Crapper’s fine flushing device and the associated indoor plumbing became commonplace. So the tradition mutated from one supporting natural necessity, to one enforcing unnatural social control. It lost its relevance. And its respect. Who today would insist that such a tradition is worth preserving?
No Sheelagh worth her salt would put up with it.
Now the question is: what is the relevance of the Barbarians today? Who are the Barbarians? They are an invitation team steeped in the tradition of amateurism. The phrase I used “messing about playing rugger” comes from a verse written by a former player whose identity I have forgotten. Google failed me in my attempt to find the full text but I do remember that one of its couplets rhymed “messing about playing rugger” with “For training we don’t give a bugger”
That was the attitude of the players who took part in the mainstay of the Barbarians’ early existence: namely the annual Easter tour of Wales. It’s a fine tradition, but one that doesn’t belong in the modern professional era. It is a tradition that would best be continued by fun-loving amateurs.
Today’s professionals have to find a window in a crowded schedule of commitments to club and country. They have to receive clearance from their contracted employers who have an interest in “player management” to get the best out of players for their own team’s end, not that of an invitation squad however legendary. Hardly surprisingly, the Barbarians side was largely made up of players on the cusp of retirement (Matfield, Shaw) or who are not currenly flavour of the month with their clubs or countries. (Stringer, Cipriani) or who are “in the shop window” with regards to their future career (Tomkins).
One great tradition worth persevering with in rugby is the notion that international competition is paramount. That is a notion coming under huge threat in soccer where the big clubs now have so much sway.
My fear for the Barbarians is that the concept could be viewed by some moenybags as the most likely one to succeed in “selling the game” into new areas. By which he means “Selling the audience for the game” not the game itself. It would be a professional “circus” of mercenaries with no particular ties to any location or community. And if the money was right, it could suck much of the cream of the world’s players out of the game. Is that what we want?
Another great tradition of rugby is that the game was the thing. Here’s the game. you play it. Adapt it to your particular strengths and then we’ll come along and give you a match. That “globalised” the playing of the game rather than the businessman’s dream of globalising an audience for a few fabulously wealthy teams.
Three cheers for the traditional strengths of rugby: dedication to local competition, veneration of the international game as the pinnacle of the sport, and a hearty respect for the enduring amateur game.
But the fine tradition of the Barbarians is in danger of becoming a sordid pawn in the unwelcome vision of some “entrepreneurs” for the future of the sport.
Well, this “lady” ain’t leaving the room!