Brumbies vs Reds: Good, but Australian rugby can do better
By sheek, 28 May 2012 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Australian rugby, Brumbies, Queensland Reds, Rugby Union, Super Rugby
Related coverage
For those Roarers upset at my constant criticism of the modern game, I have some good news. I thoroughly enjoyed the match on Friday night between the Chiefs and Bulls!
I thought it was top class rugby, as it should have been between two of the top four teams in super rugby.
I also thought some of the Hurricanes tries against the Rebels were exquisite, especially the athletic skills on display. And I enjoyed the Reds and Brumbies clash from an intensity point of view.
One of my regular criticisms of Australian rugby is a lack of intensity at the contest. But last night these two Aussie teams absolutely ripped into each other, and I enjoyed that. I really enjoyed that.
Unfortunately, the good was undone by too much bad, especially once again, a fall down in basic skills and tactical understanding of the game. For a match-up between the top two Australian sides, it left something still to be desired.
On two occasions in the match, one per side, a poor long pass from the flyhalf to the winger prevented an excellent attacking position from developing momentum.
When Cooper passed to Shipperly, and Holmes to Tomane, on each occasion the winger had to break stride to reach for the ball above his head, then start again.
By which time the defence was in his face and any advantage of momentum lost.
Basic skills displayed poorly by playmakers. Put the ball in front of the runner, at mid-riff level, with him running onto it.
I think it was midway through the first half when Mogg kicked to the open side but didn’t find touch. Now this is a cardinal sin in rugby, and it doesn’t matter if you’re playing in 2012, 1982, 1938 or 1908, it’s an invitation to disaster.
Morahan fielded the ball and he had Shipperley outside him. So what did Morahan do? He kicked the ball right back. Now if Morahan and Shipperley weren’t the two fastest players on the field last night, they were certainly close to the fastest.
Why kick? Morahan and Shipperley had an easy 40 metres upfield before the defence would have reached them. At their pace, they could have done some real damage.
This is the same Morahan who scored a brilliant individual try early in the match. The only try of the match. Maybe Morahan thought he couldn’t get away with it twice. This is incredibly negative thinking.
The great Campo wouldn’t think like this. He would be thinking to himself, “I did this once, I can do it again over and over”. It was a wasted, make it timid effort by Morahan.
This is elementary rugby. Fielding a ball on the open side is a wonderful attacking opportunity. Most of the defenders are still over on the opposite side of the field. If you’re quick thinking and quick moving, you can really do some damage.
Speaking of kicking, what’s with all these line duels and up and unders? I can understand the line dueling as a variation, and to get the line-out throw, but both sides overdid it to little positive effect.
At one stage I wondered if I had mistakenly wandered into an AFL game between the Eagles and Suns, the nearest match-up in jerseys I can find to the Brumbies and Reds. And the up and under should be renamed the ‘hail mary’.
“Bless me, hail mary, I’m going to put the ball up and under because I can’t possibly think of anything else to do”.
I now have an increasingly strong suspicion as to why Australian teams have come to kick so much more than ever before.
They mistrust their skills. They lack belief in their own ability at the breakdown. Compare this with the Kiwis and Saffies – they L-O-V-E taking the ball into a contest. They love bumping into people. They K-N-O-W they can retain possession for long periods.
Unlike the Aussies. So they kick away possession…
Early in the second half commentator Greg Martin offered the observation that both teams were “playing like they didn’t want to lose, rather than trying to win”. Sadly, this appears to be the current Aussie mindset.
Where’s the bravado, the derring-do, the chance-your-arm, that used to be part and parcel of the make-up of the Australian rugby player? Or is that another myth blown out of the water?
And where’s the variation? The Brumbies did well with their pick and drive, but too often overcooked it, with a player isolated. And when they weren’t overcooking it, there was no variety.
Once in the first half the Brumbies made huge metres with a maul, which the Reds replicated in the second half. But I don’t recall the Brumbies trying the maul too often. Or the Reds.
Indeed, several times in the second half I had a flashback to the 2000 final, and the Reds were suddenly the Crusaders, confidently strung out in single file either side of the ruck, cutting down the Brumbies as they overdid the pick and drive.
Again, where’s the variation? How about the inside backs putting in grubbers or chip and chasers to turn the defenders around. And make them second guess. Which then allows the attacking side to consider other attacking moves.
And don’t give me this crap about modern defences being too strong. The best sides, most of them Kiwis, don’t seem to have any problem. You still play the game at pace, you vary your play, change your angles, there’s so many little things you can do to unhinge the best defences eventually.
Another brain dead thing the Brumbies did was try several moves off the back of the scrum, when it was evident to all and sundry that the Reds scrum was far superior. Mowen was being creamed as he tried to pick up the ball. They should have got the message the second time it happened, but they still tried it several more times.
Okay, they were showing variation on this occasion, but this was the wrong medium to do it with. Again, elementary, dumb rugby.
I’ll end with another positive – there were some fine athletes on display last night. So perhaps Australian rugby has ore talent than I gave it credit for. Unfortunately, all the focus during the week on the coaching side of things might have some truth to it.
If the talent is there, then some serious questions have to be raised as to how they’re being mentored, and coached. Because, on evidence in the Reds and Brumbies clash, there was a lot of dumb rugby played.
Like the banner line at the top – can do better.
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.
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.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Wallabies squad announced: Folau in, no Quade Cooper – yet (266)
- Deans: Should he stay or should he go? (245)
- SPIRO’s Lions Diary: Deans goes for experience, plus Folau (238)
- Quade Cooper misses Wallaby squad selection (208)
- Wallabies 25-man Lions squad: analysis (197)
- Quade shouldn’t be fly half against the Lions (184)
- What gives with Israel Folau? (184)
- Time for Wallabies to harness ‘Poly’ power (111)
- Lions cheat-sheet: the Wallaby game plan (140)
- Wallaby six-pack: who gets the June call-up? (127)
- AAC: the man for this moment (25)
- Berrick Barnes inclusion a bright prospect (27)
- Will Genia must stay injury free for the Wallabies to be a chance (52)
- Roar Stats from Super Rugby Round 12 (53)
- Lions cheat-sheet: the Wallaby game plan (140)
- AAC: the man for this moment (25)
- Berrick Barnes inclusion a bright prospect (27)
- Jesse Mogg needs to move back to Queensland (28)
- Open letter to ARU CEO Bill Pulver (pt two): nationalise Super Rugby (31)
- King George you will be missed (13)
- NZRU show the height of sporting arrogance (55)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Australian rugby, Brumbies, Queensland Reds, Rugby Union, Super Rugby



May 28th 2012 @ 9:34am
formeropenside said | May 28th 2012 @ 9:34am | Report comment
Nah, the Reds had a plan and stuck to it. They won. They kept the Brumbies tryless. They beat the Brumbies at their own game.
Thats all that matters.
May 28th 2012 @ 9:35am
sheek said | May 28th 2012 @ 9:35am | Report comment
Thanks for the insight (?) Fossie…..
May 28th 2012 @ 9:36am
sheek said | May 28th 2012 @ 9:36am | Report comment
BTW,
I thought the two opensides – Hooper & Gill – were outstanding, especially Gill.
May 28th 2012 @ 10:03am
Red Kev said | May 28th 2012 @ 10:03am | Report comment
Sheek – interesting comment because G&GR has a lot of posters banging the drum that Hooper comprehensively outplayed Gill – I am not so sure and it seems you aren’t either.
It was probably honours even in terms of the match up. I felt the game highlighted the differences in their play more than anything else. Hooper is a far more attacking player, creating things and honestly reminds me of a George Smith with his great ball skills and all-around game. Gill is far better on the ball. He tackles better, he pilfers better, but he doesn’t offer the same attacking options that Hooper does.
If I were picking a Wallabies squad I’d have Pocock and Hooper. But if I was picking a Wallabies team with Pocock injured I’d be starting Gill at no.7.
May 28th 2012 @ 10:16am
sheek said | May 28th 2012 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Red Kev,
Gill had the advantage of playing behind the stronger pack. They were both good though.
Your comments are interesting re their differences. Since Pocock is going to be around a long time (presumedly), at least one of them will need to learn blindside. I’m reckoning Gill is the more versatile player of the two, while Hooper is an out & out openside.
I think long-term, Gill will be the better player. But that’s just my perception.
May 28th 2012 @ 10:16am
Eric said | May 28th 2012 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Geez Sheek, I made the 6 hour round trip to Canberra, taking wife & daughter for first time. NEVER AGAIN. What a woeful display. The people in our section of the stands groaned every time a player shaped to return a kick. It seemed both teams, both coaches, decided it was wet and cold, just kick the thing away and prey on mistakes every time. In fact it didn’t rain during the game. I wish Steve Walsh had pulled the teams together, and said “Listen you boofheads, there are 15,000 brave people here to watch you, the cream of Australian rugby in 2012. The next bloke that returns a kick gets sinbinned”.
No player stood out. Gill did a couple of sharp things, Slipper might have got the better of Alexander, Cooper was hardly sighted. He defends 10 metres behind the open winger, and only lines up in attack occasionally. I can’t recall him pasing it wide once, even though Shipperley, Morahan & Ioane are very dangerous players.
May 28th 2012 @ 10:51am
sheek said | May 28th 2012 @ 10:51am | Report comment
Eric,
Us rugby fans are not unlike the family dog – desperately waiting for that next rush of affection from our owners. In rugby terms, it can be a long wait between great games.
Australian rugby is losing the public relations exercise with AFL & NRL. They just don’t seem to appreciate the seriousness of the situation. And they don’t seem to care.
The disappointing thing, the really disappointing thing, is that rugby is a terrific game when played well. But unfortunately, here in Australia, the franchises are too wrapped up in themselves.
May 28th 2012 @ 10:19am
kingplaymaker said | May 28th 2012 @ 10:19am | Report comment
Great stuff sheek. I’m not quite sure where the answer lies. In an obvious sense you need pretty good backs to run the ball and have confidence to try to win. In another there is the woolly conservatism in Australian rugby that leads to the likes of Foley being appointed, a forwards coach, and thinking of rugby as a 10 man game. But perhaps deeper than all these is an underlying lack of self-confidence in the sport in Australia. The national teams and Super teams even if they win are rarely dominant for long, while the code wallows in a second rate status within Australia to the NRL and AFL, the former with its string of star athletes. Could it be that perhaps the players don’t belief in the strength of the fabric they inhabit, and their own abilties in consequence? Self-belief or lack of confidence can operate in whole groups, countries, teams and pass invisibly into every action. Just a thought.
May 28th 2012 @ 7:29pm
matthew said | May 28th 2012 @ 7:29pm | Report comment
Very good point Kingplayer. You’ve eloquently summed up what I’ve thought for some time. The Kiwi and Saffer teams dont have that kind of baggage about the game that the Aussies do subconsciously or not where it’s thought of as third rate in certain quarters, thoughts are powerful things and the environment of the players make this type of thing a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think the most blatant manifestation of this has been with the Waratahs.
May 29th 2012 @ 5:51am
Damo said | May 29th 2012 @ 5:51am | Report comment
Yes Mathew and Sheek. Can’t help but see the quality of OZ rugby connected to the mass invisibility of the code as a whole. If a troupe of cashed up Hollywood talent scouts were there looking for blokes who ran and passed well we might see some more positive footy.
Maybe we we could invent such a troupe.
May 28th 2012 @ 11:25am
Sledgeandhammer said | May 28th 2012 @ 11:25am | Report comment
The Reds vs Brumbies game was crap. I suspect the poor play was more due to the players getting too worked up rather than any clever game plans. This used to regularly occur with Reds vs Waratah matches which were always turgid affairs.
However, I like Sheek really enjoyed all other matches this round. After watching the SOO the other night, I don’t think NRL is such a big threat – the sport is just so limited it doesn’t translate well to the big stage (unlike say rugby world cup final). But the problem rugby has is we do occasionally get stinkers such as the Reds game, and for some reason in Australia, the bigger the match, the worse the play. Some of these players need to pull the head out of the derrier and realise people are actually paying to watch them play.
May 28th 2012 @ 11:46am
sheek said | May 28th 2012 @ 11:46am | Report comment
Sledgie,
I don’t mind league, but I thought the opening SOO game was rather tepid compared to many matches in the past. Having watched some league games recently, I’m convinced (without trying to start a code war) that league can’t compete with union when union is played well.
League is a limited game in many respects. But its advantage is that it can maximise itself reasonably well within its limitations (if that makes any sense).
Unfortunately, here in Australia, our rugby is being let down by many of the players & some of the coaches.
May 29th 2012 @ 5:54am
Damo said | May 29th 2012 @ 5:54am | Report comment
And a resistance to significant structural change.
May 28th 2012 @ 12:03pm
ilikedahoodoogurusingha said | May 28th 2012 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
Sledge, as I mentioned on another thread this comes from within the run on team; the Brumbies played to their game plan only it didn’t work out…..too many mistakes at crucial times in the red zone.
May 29th 2012 @ 8:01am
sixo_clock said | May 29th 2012 @ 8:01am | Report comment
Utterly agree, the game was more about not losing than trying to out-Rugby the other side. Somebody above said “turgid”, I would like to add boring and probably the dullest game this year. How would you pick a Wallabies squad with any ‘threat factor’ out of that mess. Not one linebreak of any consequence, the ball would have been the warmest thing out there but for the single figure temperature. The backs were exposed to hypothermia, should have been given dressing gowns! Disheartening Rugby when everyone knows we have to lift the profile of the game. The ABC Shute Shield game between the Two Blues and Gordon was brilliant compared to the so-called top-of-the-table dour-fest.
If the blame can be attested to the players’ fear of failure rather than the coaches recommended ‘game plan’ then DIngo should get them all together and draw up some guidelines so that our local derbies can be more interesting. No kicking high balls between the 20m lines might be a good place to start, grubbers are ok…
Real Rugby involves quick thinking forwards working up a tactical advantage to exploit for themselves or launch a back line attacking raid, seemingly this concept still hasn’t permeated through to our Rugby leadership.
May 28th 2012 @ 7:46pm
Bsc said | May 28th 2012 @ 7:46pm | Report comment
Yawn
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
May 29th 2012 @ 7:54am
sheek said | May 29th 2012 @ 7:54am | Report comment
Bsc – thanks for dropping by. Fancy going to the trouble of having a look, then responding ‘yawn’.
Kind of dumb, don’t you think? Anyway, it added one extra response to the post – gotta be happy about that!
May 29th 2012 @ 10:09am
Daz said | May 29th 2012 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Sheek I didn’t get to see that game so I can’t comment on it. Your comment about passing skills strikes a real chord with me though. It is a pet peeve of mine as well. It should be such a basic, ingrained skill yet it does not seem to be. And it is not just restricted to one code. It is infuriating to see the ball thrown at the man or worse still above or behind him instead of in front of him and to where he will be in a split seconds time. A poor pass, as you say, reduces attacking momentum, takes the receiver’s focus off where the opposition players are and worst case scenario sets the receiver up for a wonderful hit by the opposition. I would even go so far to say consistent poor passing is the hallmark of a selfish player, one who has no consideration for his fellow team mates and no concept of working together as a team to achieve a common goal.
May 30th 2012 @ 12:27am
Johnno said | May 30th 2012 @ 12:27am | Report comment
Reds v Brumbies was a rubbish game. Too much kicking and too many penalties. I hope Australian rugby does not decend into the bore-fest that is SA rugby (kick, kick, drop-kick, kick, kick).