SPIRO: Deans is back as Wallabies slay Welsh dragon
By Spiro Zavos, 11 Jun 2012 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Australian rugby, robbie deans, Rugby Union, Wales rugby, wallabies
154 Have your say
Robbie Deans showed he can win with the Wallabies win over Wales, but the Australian team has capitulated against the All Blacks (AAP Image/Dave Hunt)
Related coverage
After the unsettling loss to Scotland on Tuesday, Robbie Deans looked drawn, tired and under stress. It was the look of a coach facing the metaphorical gallows.
But four days is a long time in sport. On Saturday night he had the familiar cranky South Island farmer toughness and pride in his manner as he dealt with the media, after the Wallabies recorded an unexpectedly convincing victory over a confident Wales side at Brisbane 27-19.
A sense of that confidence came when the great Welsh finisher, Ieuan Evans, told the Fox Sports commentary team that ‘this is the best Welsh squad we’ve sent to Australia in 30 years.’
He also noted that the first Test was the best chance Wales had of winning a rare victory in Australia.
Touring sides generally have the advantage in the first Test. But this was or should have been accentuated for Wales by the fact that the Wallabies had played and lost a Test four days earlier in atrocious conditions. Berrick Barnes, for instance, was playing his third hard match (a Super Rugby game and two Tests) in the space of a week.
But it was notable that it was the Wallabies who finished the stronger when they stopped a Wales second-half fight-back in its tracks with a terrific try by Pat McCabe in the 67th, who broke the Wales defensive line with a searing inside break with the incisiveness of David Campese at his best.
I always enjoy the cornucopia of statistics that Greg Clarke, the Fox Sports rugby caller, gives us before a Test. Here are a few. Wales last won in Australia in 1969, 43 years ago. They last beat Australia at home in 2005 and 2008 when they were the reigning Six Nations champions. They are currently the Six Nations champions. In this 2012 Six Nations they scored eight out of their 10 tries in the second half.
In favour of the Wallabies, they have only lost to the All Blacks at Suncorp Stadium. To all their other opponents the stadium has been a Wallaby fortress.
And this pattern of a strong Wales second half held true in an engrossing Test. At halftime the Wallabies were leading 10-3, and could have been more.
Then the rightful Man of the Match, Will Genia, scored a sensational try. He broke from a maul, beat off the tackles of the props plonked nearby and then defeated the fullback, Leigh Halfpenny, again with a Campese-like in-and-out jink. The try was capped by booting the ball into the enthusiastic crowd. Great stuff.
Then Wales came back after 65 minutes of play to reduce the Wallaby lead to a point. It looked like the Scottish Test all over again as the Wallabies seemed destined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
But with some fresh legs coming on as reserves, the Wallabies won possession from the kick-off and then slammed into the Wales 22, before McCabe scythed through to ensure that the Welsh dragon was well and truly slain.
The penalty count went against Australia 13 – 6 but I thought Craig Joubert had an excellent match, again. I regard him as the best referee in the world. He explains to players exactly why he is ruling the way he is. He is accurate. He is in favour of open rugby and his 50-50 decisions tend to go with the attacking side.
Nor does he have that annoying tendency of many northern hemisphere referees to punctuate long phases of play with an inevitable penalty.
Back in 1905 the All Blacks complained that UK referees stopped play with penalties because they couldn’t keep up with their free-flowing, athletic game. I sometimes think that this criticism is valid over 100 years after it was originally made.
Barnes had an useful game, but not much more than that. He still stands too deep in the pocket. You cannot get a backline moving quickly into attack with a number 10 standing deep all the time. However, I liked the field goal he knocked over in the 51st minute, which turned out to be the buffer when Wales came back at the Wallabies.
My theory on field goals is that teams shouldn’t wait until the last few minutes of the match to take them. By then the defence is awake to the possibility and usually scrambles a good response. When the option is taken, as it was by Barnes, early in the second half, he had plenty of time to get his kick in solidly. The points, as I’ve noted, came in very handy 15 minutes later when Wales would otherwise have scrambled into a lead.
Barnes did (rightfully) incur the displeasure of Rod Kafer when he put a grubber kick in when the Wallabies were mounting a series of charges inside the Wales 22.
Kafer also made the point, when Wales launched its second half counter-attack against what seemed to be a wilting Wallabies side, that it was at this stage of many of their matches that the Waratahs began to get tired and lose leads to more spirited and fitter opponents.
The point here is that the run-on Wallaby side had no fewer than seven Waratahs. Only one member (Pat McCabe) of the leading Australian side the Brumbies was in the starting XV. There were five Reds, the Force’s David Pocock (who importantly out-played Sam Warburton) and the Rebels’ Cooper Vuna (playing his first Test).
It is greatly to the credit of Deans as a coach that he got the best out of the Waratahs, who have mostly been out of form all season under the coaching of Michael Foley. We have to remember that Genia, Quade Cooper and Kurtley Beale all were picked by Deans when they were inexperienced players (Genia having played just three Super Rugby games).
When Deans is criticised as a coach it needs to be remembered that the most gifted players in the Wallaby squad last year were developed by him, rather than by the respective Super Rugby coaches.
Another example of Deans’ coaching prowess was the play of Adam Ashley-Cooper. For the Waratahs he has been, to put it bluntly, almost useless. But against Wales he was impressively safe under the high ball. His defence was excellent. And he ran the ball back from deep rather than play the Waratahs game of just booting the ball down the field.
As Deans promised, too, he gave Barnes a lot of runners to pop passes to. As a consequence, we did not see much of his aimless kicking game.
When the Wallabies kept the ball in hand they were impressive. Deans had worked out the sometimes disconcerting Welsh tactic of coming in from the outside on defence, the umbrella defence invented I think by the rugby league coaching guru Warren Ryan.
The Wallaby halves kept feeding the inside ball to runners like Digby Ioane, who had a whale of a time in attack.
Pre-Test, there was much made of the fact that Deans, after the loss to Scotland, had a winning ratio of 57 percent, the same ratio that saw Eddie Jones sacked.
But it needs to be remembered that Jones inherited a great team, number one in the world, from Rod McQueen, who had won the 1999 Rugby World Cup, the Tri Nations, the Bledisloe Cup and a series against the British and Irish Lions.
Deans, on the other hand, inherited a side that was number five in the world and falling, had no major trophies in the kit, and had been eliminated from the Rugby World Cup 2007 in the quarter-finals.
My take from this information is that Deans has done an outstanding job at a difficult time for Australian rugby. And here is another statistic that Greg Clark might throw into the mix on Saturday night when the Wallabies play Wales at Melbourne.
Last season Deans had a 67 percent winning record, despite the fact that the Wallabies lost the first game of the season to Samoa in an upset as unexpected and untimely as last week’s defeat by Scotland.
Spiro Zavos, a founding writer on The Roar, was long time editorial writer on the Sydney Morning Herald, where he started a rugby column that has run for nearly 30 years. Spiro has written 12 books: fiction, biography, politics and histories of Australian, New Zealand, British and South African rugby. He is regarded as one of the foremost writers on rugby throughout the world.
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:
- Australian rugby, robbie deans, Rugby Union, Wales rugby, wallabies



June 11th 2012 @ 6:24am
sheek said | June 11th 2012 @ 6:24am | Report comment
Spiro,
“Touring sides usually haqve the advantage of the first test”. This may have been so in the good old days when touring sides had any number of lead-in games in which to build combinations, & familiarise themselves with local conditions.
On this occasion I would argue the advantage was with the Wallabies. They got their obligatory “bad game” out of the way early (against Scotland), & were looking for redemption (yet again!). Which they achieved.
I enjoyed this test, & look forward to the 2nd & 3rd tests. However, Aussie fans should not get carried away by this performance. This decade, & indeed historically, the Wallabies struggle to put successive good performances together.
It’s early days still…..
June 11th 2012 @ 9:29am
Rugby Diehard said | June 11th 2012 @ 9:29am | Report comment
SPIRO – Correction I believe needed. I have read in at least 2 different articles that Genia stepped HalfPenny to score but I am sure it was James Hook. It would be nice if those writing the article did not take their lead from other stories byut rather from rewatchjing the game…… I will stand corrected if I got this wrong.
June 11th 2012 @ 10:08am
stu said | June 11th 2012 @ 10:08am | Report comment
You are right RD – it was Hook.
June 11th 2012 @ 11:24am
Elisha Pearce said | June 11th 2012 @ 11:24am | Report comment
Yep definitely Hook. You’d think a full time back 3 player would have gotten a hand to Genia on that run.
June 11th 2012 @ 3:43pm
bluerose said | June 11th 2012 @ 3:43pm | Report comment
just read that Deans has invited Jake White to attend/observe their training practice in Melbourne after the Brumbies-Wales game, sounds like a damn good idea if he can give some pointers to Deans and the entire squad.
June 11th 2012 @ 3:54pm
Photon said | June 11th 2012 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
I think the Wallabies were more than a little fortunate on Saturday. Wales managed to work their way right back into that fixture from 17-3 down early in the 2nd half. Priestland stuffed up, if he must have knocked on atleast 3 different times with the Welsh about to score. The most important occasion being when Wales were 4 points behind with 20 to go. I also think Pocock is allowed to get away with murder at rucks, and that generally the Wallabies do a lot of illegal stuff at ruck time. I don’t understand why Joubert kept telling Pocock to let the ball go instead of penalising him. He’s already slowed the ball downs by then and half-acheived his objective.
June 11th 2012 @ 7:50pm
The Way It Is said | June 11th 2012 @ 7:50pm | Report comment
Agree
June 11th 2012 @ 8:25pm
Ruthless said | June 11th 2012 @ 8:25pm | Report comment
Yeah, but the Wallabies played with only 14 men for the whole first half. Did you see Vuna?
June 12th 2012 @ 12:05am
Geo said | June 12th 2012 @ 12:05am | Report comment
Wallabies also duffed up a few opportunities…yes we can see you dont like Aus rugby but put some less biased opinion on next time.
June 11th 2012 @ 11:54pm
Trevor DeAngelo said | June 11th 2012 @ 11:54pm | Report comment
Sheek, – ‘don’t get carried away by the performance! It’s early days’ – come on – it’s Australian to call the wallabies world beaters and the best team, full of the worlds best player after one good half of footy! We don’t need to wait to we have proven ourselves game after game, or to win stupid trophies to claim our rightful place as ‘best in the world’! One good half and where incredible! Get with the cultural agenda!
June 11th 2012 @ 6:33am
mania said | June 11th 2012 @ 6:33am | Report comment
sheek – enjoy the win , it was well deserved.
wales i thought got a bit stunned and didnt recover quickly enough to get back into the game.
special shout out to AAC who had an awesome game. good to see he’s still got it. shame he’ll get shifted again and forced to refind his mojo in which ever position he plays next
June 11th 2012 @ 7:35am
Red Kev said | June 11th 2012 @ 7:35am | Report comment
I agree on AAC. I’d like to see him at Outside Centre instead of Horne.
And someone else on the wing please – Shipperley preferably but even Ma’afu would offer more than Vuna.
June 11th 2012 @ 7:36am
mania said | June 11th 2012 @ 7:36am | Report comment
RK – agree but prefer him as 12. another kick option and get him closer to the action
June 12th 2012 @ 9:44am
Albo said | June 12th 2012 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Ideally I would love to see Barnes move to 12 and AAC at 13. I agree that AAC would make a great 12 (and has in the past) but at 13 he’s able to get more space on his good in and aways and fend. Barnes I think is a 12. When he’s a playmaker 100% of the game he loses concentration at (sometimes) pivotal moments. When he comes in off the ruck in second + phases he offers his best game.
I’ve never hidden my ardent admiration for AAC. He should always be there somewhere… wherever the poor bloke is put that week.
June 11th 2012 @ 10:50am
sittingbison said | June 11th 2012 @ 10:50am | Report comment
RK do you mean Mafi? Who would actually be a good swap. I’m not sure Maafu would be up to it on the wing unless there was pie on offer %)
June 12th 2012 @ 1:59am
murph73 said | June 12th 2012 @ 1:59am | Report comment
Maafu would probably do better
June 11th 2012 @ 8:33am
sheek said | June 11th 2012 @ 8:33am | Report comment
Mania,
I’m an odd type of Wallaby supporter. Aware of the fragile existence of rugby in our country, I’m always looking for a good contest before a win. On this occasion, I got lucky on both counts, but as I caution, it’s early days.
The Wallabies have shown us how well they can play when they want to. Now they must repeat this performance about 9-10 more times this year……….???
June 11th 2012 @ 8:36am
mania said | June 11th 2012 @ 8:36am | Report comment
sheek – and fair enuff. but for this week your boys did well. a test is still a test and this is a win.
wallaby’s only need to worry about 1 test and thats the next one.
you still musta been smiling at full time tho sheek?
June 11th 2012 @ 8:55am
sheek said | June 11th 2012 @ 8:55am | Report comment
Mania – amazing what a difference it makes when you do things at pace. It’s an old adage, but often ignored in the modern Australian game – “possession, position, PACE”.
June 11th 2012 @ 9:47am
mania said | June 11th 2012 @ 9:47am | Report comment
more importantly sheek, there was , for me , team spirit. def more a sense of teamwork than ths scot game. they were playing for each toher more and i sensed there were more ideas being thrown around, tho i have no basis for opinion.
it was confidence and belief but i could be wrong
June 11th 2012 @ 12:20pm
Uncle Argyle said | June 11th 2012 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
Throw is a splash and persistence, drizzled with some passion on a steaming hot bed of POWER and you may find youself in Masterchef Sheek.
But as often I find myself in agreance with your thoughts on Australian Rugby….
June 11th 2012 @ 9:03am
Jarmen said | June 11th 2012 @ 9:03am | Report comment
I agree Sheek although I am not a Wallaby fan.
A wins a win but a convincing win this surely was not
June 11th 2012 @ 9:27am
Rugby Diehard said | June 11th 2012 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Sheek – I agree, I don’t think we would beat the ABs with a performance like that, not enough creativity from our 10 with so much quality ball.
June 11th 2012 @ 10:09am
Sage said | June 11th 2012 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Agreed
June 11th 2012 @ 6:35am
gormon kinchley said | June 11th 2012 @ 6:35am | Report comment
I watched the game from the U.K., where I am currently working and living. The commentators were awful, but that’s a different story; the main thing which they kept reiterating was the ‘extreme’ pace of the match. I didn’t think it was particularly fast, I just think it was fast in comparison to a regular Northern Hemisphere match. I also disagree with them that the referee had a poor match and was in favour of the Wallabies. As far as I could see, he encouraged a flowing match and helped to make it interesting.
June 11th 2012 @ 9:26am
Rugby Diehard said | June 11th 2012 @ 9:26am | Report comment
GK – I agree I thought the ref had a top game – hence it was played at a good pace.
June 11th 2012 @ 12:09pm
Fish said | June 11th 2012 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
At least your commentary was in English – I watched the game in the US (where I currently work/live) and the commentary was in Welsh!
June 11th 2012 @ 9:57pm
mace 22 said | June 11th 2012 @ 9:57pm | Report comment
Agree as well gk thats the difference between the hemispheres the pace of the game. Chuck in a lot of physicality then the north can’t cope. The thing to remember is that these games are just warm ups for the real contest, And to not get carried away with the results. The all blacks thump ireland but that is ireland not australia or south africa or in my opinion argentina.
June 11th 2012 @ 10:06pm
Ben S said | June 11th 2012 @ 10:06pm | Report comment
That’s an astute comment re: physicality. If there’s one thing the NH isn’t adept at it’s dealing with Australian physicality.
The first half performance from Australia was excellent. The intensity and execution was bang on, but Wales should never have been considered a serious contender. There’s a lot of ridiculous comments flying about.
June 11th 2012 @ 10:12pm
mace 22 said | June 11th 2012 @ 10:12pm | Report comment
yes Ben S with that comment I was mostly thinking of the all blacks and springboks.
June 11th 2012 @ 10:19pm
Ben S said | June 11th 2012 @ 10:19pm | Report comment
I certainly don’t think physicality is an issue at all. Not by a long shot.
June 11th 2012 @ 10:48pm
Rugby Diehard said | June 11th 2012 @ 10:48pm | Report comment
No Ben S – if the game were who scrummaged the best then you are right the NH may have won more than a single RWC – aklthough these would arguably have generally gone to Boks, Argies and ABs more often.
Unfortunately, for the NH, as Australia have repeatedly shown an unhealthy obsession with the scrum and up the jumper Rugby does not win games often. Even though we are more often than not out-muscled in the scrums, whoever we play, we are rarely beaten by a NH side at the critical contact area which delivers our backs the front foot ball they need to score more points than our opposition. the team that wins the PHYSICAL contest at the breakdown will, 9/10 times win the game.
It is just astounding that NH sides seem always willing to sacrifice a scavenger style player like our Poidevin, Wilson, Smith, Pocock for some extra grunt in a scrum…….. Oh well one day I guess the penny will drop, in the meantime it must be incredibly frustrating as a fan.
The truth is in spite of what you are inferring, Australia regularly wins the physical contest in these games against our NH rivals, just not at the most morbidly obvious physical contest of the scrum, (and given we are usually not very good at rolling mauls). If mauling and scrummaging were really much of a part of the game then I would agree with you, but unfortunately, they form about 15% of a Rugby game.
This comes from a former front rower – when the IRB finally cottons on that the scrum is supposed to be a contested means of restarting play, rather than a boring exercise in slowing the game down maybe the NH will be able to move on a little.
Crouch, (5 seconds) Touch, (5 seconds) Pause, (5 seconds) Engage (5 Seconds). Repack………
June 11th 2012 @ 11:55pm
Ben S said | June 11th 2012 @ 11:55pm | Report comment
No Rugby Diehard – of the game were who scrummaged the best then the WCs would not have arguably gone to the Boks or ABs more often.
I’ve only occasionally seen Australia assert dominance at the contact area against a NH side because their front five is normally so mediocre to poor. That’s just a ridiculous comment. When does Australia ever win the territory and possession stats against a NH side?
NH sides don’t sacrifice scavengers, they just don’t really develop them as the pitches are wetter and slower.
June 11th 2012 @ 11:59pm
mace 22 said | June 11th 2012 @ 11:59pm | Report comment
Ben if you look at the recent record of the wallabies have over the springboks you must admit it’s pretty impressive. How come a team with a purceived weakness in it’s forward pack regularly beat a team as physically intimidating as the springboks , It;s because they play the game at a faster pace so with this pace it can match the springbok physical game. But when it comes to the all blacks it can match the wallabies pace and out muscle it’s forward pack. When the wallabies win the forward battle it’s world class backs can shine. As the two wins over the all blacks can attest to. They beat or matched the ab’s in the physical stakes and won.
June 12th 2012 @ 12:07am
Ben S said | June 12th 2012 @ 12:07am | Report comment
I repeat: ‘I’ve only occasionally seen Australia assert dominance at the contact area against a NH side because their front five is normally so mediocre to poor. That’s just a ridiculous comment. When does Australia ever win the territory and possession stats against a NH side?’
South Africa aren’t a scary side any longer. Australia have an excellent record against them, but that isn’t down to pure physical dominance, it’s down to a number of factors. Look at the WC QF as an example – how much ball did the Wallaby forwards win there?
Rugby is like boxing. Styles make fights, and certain sides have the edge over each other ATM. NZ tend to have games where they struggle against SA whereas Australia have really dished them over the past few seasons, for example. The same applies worldwide. France tend to struggle against Argentina whereas Wales will nearly always rout them… and so on.
June 12th 2012 @ 12:27am
Rugby Diehard said | June 12th 2012 @ 12:27am | Report comment
Ben S – you have entirely missed the point if you think that holding onto the ball for longer than your opposition wins you Rugby games or proves physical domination.
There are often games won by the side which had less possession, in fact the Welsh I believe finished up with 52% possession on Saturday night and there is no way known to man they outpointed us physically at contact.
Case in Point – It has been a common theme for the Waratahs this year (who have been accused of trying to play a NH style 10 man game). Truck the ball up with miserable one metre gains, achieving nothing but retaining miserably slow possession and then every twenty phases or so throw the ball to a 10 standing way behind the gain line to a static outside man for his lumbering forwards to try and help them retain possession and maybe make the gain line. This weight of possession is seen by some as evidence of their physical domination, this is utter garbage it is just evidence of their inability to delvier front foot ball to their backline – Winning possession does not mean winning the game – it is all about physically dominating your opponent at vital contact to:
1. Win turnovers
2. deliver lightning ball
Then after a miserable Waratah performance flick over to the top sides and watch them with quick phase ball, rarely falling into a poor gain pick and drive mentality. Quick ball wide to tire your opponents big men and try and create a situation where an outside back can take on a slower man from the opposition tight 5.
Simple in theory but damn hard to execute, which is I suspect why the NH teams generally refer to type. I think we at least appreciate, however, that there is great intent by the Welsh to endeavour to play a SH style of Rugby, which they are doing quite well it must be said.
PS – if Australian Rugby is so crap why do you keep coming to this blog???? Need some insight?
June 12th 2012 @ 12:38am
Ben S said | June 12th 2012 @ 12:38am | Report comment
You’re just contradicting yourself, and you’re being childish too. Keep your stereotypes thanks, they’re not for me. No interest, mate.
June 12th 2012 @ 12:55am
Rugby Diehard said | June 12th 2012 @ 12:55am | Report comment
Relax mate, you do make a point of pointing out the failings of Australian Rugby and when challenged you never seem to have anything much more than how “rough and tough your boyos are”.
I’m all ears to my “contradictions”, and happy to hear them pointed out.
June 12th 2012 @ 1:07am
Ben S said | June 12th 2012 @ 1:07am | Report comment
I’m relaxed, but you’re just talking nonsense ‘ ‘boyos’?!, which is a waste of my time. During the first half of the live game feed I was very complimentary about Australia, likewise the other day I posted three paragraphs referring to specific technical failings of the Wallabies… not just stereotypes. I offer criticisms and positive appraisals of all nations, especially England. I guess the lack of hyperbole and hot air must be alien to some.
June 12th 2012 @ 1:21am
PeterK said | June 12th 2012 @ 1:21am | Report comment
Ben S – If the wallaby front 5 is normally (commonly) mediocre to poor, and the wallabies have a head to head better win record against allNH teams (58.75% eng, 58.53% france , 66+% rest) how much stronger must the rest of the wallabies team be then!
After all if the front 5 is so weak then scrums and lineouts must be weak as well.
It is amazing how the wallabies beat them so often then.
June 12th 2012 @ 1:27am
Ben S said | June 12th 2012 @ 1:27am | Report comment
What is this? This is ridiculous. None of it makes any sense whatsoever. If a tight five is weak why on earth would that automatically suggest that their set pieces would be weak? It always baffles me why you constantly try to lecture on forward play.
June 12th 2012 @ 1:33am
Rugby Diehard said | June 12th 2012 @ 1:33am | Report comment
Righto, mate. I actually didn’t mean to offend you but I would add that rather than “hyperbole and hot air” just a well-constructed argument with real points and actual examples would have been good. Very easy to pull my post apart with a glib one-liner by saying it is full of contradictions and stereotypes but not be bothered to actually mention specifics. No one could read all the posts on the site so as Dingo would say “I can only play what’s in front of me”…..
June 12th 2012 @ 1:40am
Ben S said | June 12th 2012 @ 1:40am | Report comment
If you can’t read all my posts then it strikes me as rather unnecessary to state I only respond with we’re tough gubbins. I don’t feel the need to respond to that sort of comment in depth when the answer is on countless threads on the site.
June 12th 2012 @ 2:50pm
Rugby Diehard said | June 12th 2012 @ 2:50pm | Report comment
Ben S – happy to go to wherever the posts are that counter these argument – j just tell me the article if that’s OK as I am interested to hear the counter argument and cant ocate the posts you are referring to.
June 12th 2012 @ 1:16am
PeterK said | June 12th 2012 @ 1:16am | Report comment
why shouldnt wales , the rgand slam champions, with wallabies backing up from tuesday be considered a serious contender?
June 12th 2012 @ 1:26am
Ben S said | June 12th 2012 @ 1:26am | Report comment
Because that’s a pointlessly simplistic and glib position to take. Rugby fans know that 6N tournaments directly after WCs and Lions tours are turgid affairs. The last 6N was of poor quality. There were three new coaching panels on display and a host of new players. Plus, anybody who had actually seen Wales play in the 6N would have noticed that their familiar failings were still pretty evident, and how a limited England side contained them pretty comfortably. When you further consider that Wales have an appalling record against the SH sides (and especially Australia), that they were missing some key players, were playing away from home, some of their best players hadn’t played in a few months and Australia had just lost again to a very average Scotland side then it would take a brave man to back them. It’s very easy to make broad statement about NH rugby unless you actually watch it on a regular and consistent basis.
June 12th 2012 @ 9:58am
MR said | June 12th 2012 @ 9:58am | Report comment
Ben, as someone who lives in HK and watches a lot of Nth & Sth hemisphere rugby I disagree, the points raised are valid questions. The northern hemisphere consistently under performs against southern hemisphere and that is reflected in world rankings (2003 being the odd exception). It is true that wallabies often fail to perform in tight five at scrum but still dominate northern teams with a mixture of pace and good scavengers. It is simplistic to blame weather conditions for a lack of scavengers & pace as style of play is influenced by but not dependant on weather, eg NZ has very similar weatherconditions to UK, SA has opposite conditions and premiership teams play in the same conditions
June 12th 2012 @ 8:16pm
Ben S said | June 12th 2012 @ 8:16pm | Report comment
NZ also has some awesome weather. France and England historically have not produced 7s. I’ve been involved with the age group sides as a young man and clubs prefer bigger men, It is a philosophy that is partly motivated by the weather and partly by style of play. The same applies to SA and Argentina.
I’m confused re: the Wallaby point.
June 11th 2012 @ 6:47am
Damo said | June 11th 2012 @ 6:47am | Report comment
Ok Sheek we all agree now to put all the corks back in the champagne.
I agree regarding the Scottish ‘warm up’ being an advantage to the Wallabies that Wales did not have.
Though they have just played a six nations together.
I don’t think it was so much a matter of getting a ‘bad game out of the way’ but more of having a good Tuesday night training run (with deeply motivating embarrassment) four days before the game.
This weekend was Wales’ “warm up”. And Australia’s claim for dignity.
Next week in Melbourne (with both sides’ injury and form replacements) will be the first real rugby test.
June 11th 2012 @ 7:09am
Justin said | June 11th 2012 @ 7:09am | Report comment
Gee nice use of stats there Spiro to suit your argument!
Imagine what that 67% win rate would have been for Dingo had they beaten Samoa and Ireland
WC years should provide very good win ratios as you play minnows.
Aac has always been a good defender, hardly down to Deans coaching he had a good game. He hasn’t been poor at NSW he just doesn’t get the ball! Big difference.
June 11th 2012 @ 7:12am
mania said | June 11th 2012 @ 7:12am | Report comment
fully agree justin. AAC is a victim of having bad coaches and gameplans. the man himself is just as good as ever.
June 11th 2012 @ 7:42am
sixo_clock said | June 11th 2012 @ 7:42am | Report comment
He only has himself to blame, he voluntarily signed with the ‘Tahs. Dumb move, even when the knives were out for Friend, makes a body wonder what Hooper was thinking too.
June 11th 2012 @ 9:13am
Bunce said | June 11th 2012 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Spies in the Brumbies camp say Hooper’s having serious regrets.
June 11th 2012 @ 9:24am
Rugby Diehard said | June 11th 2012 @ 9:24am | Report comment
sorry to be off the pace but has Hooper signed with the Tahs?
June 11th 2012 @ 9:38am
CraigB said | June 11th 2012 @ 9:38am | Report comment
Yep
June 11th 2012 @ 9:37am
CraigB said | June 11th 2012 @ 9:37am | Report comment
Get khoder Nasser on the phone. Maybe he can organise a SBW style walk out
June 11th 2012 @ 11:08am
El Gamba said | June 11th 2012 @ 11:08am | Report comment
Wish he’d work out how to go back so that Pocock has to stay at home…
June 12th 2012 @ 2:20pm
Axel said | June 12th 2012 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
AAC is s serial HOG! When he’s on song and busting tackles he’s great but how often does he die with the ball with free men all around him – even when the line is wide open he rarely passes to a player in a better position
June 11th 2012 @ 3:15pm
Dan said | June 11th 2012 @ 3:15pm | Report comment
I dunno… I tend to think there is a terribly disease in the NSW system at the moment that is causing the team’s players to play stupid NH style kick-a-thon rugby. It’s true that AAC has kicked a crap load of possession away this year for the ‘Tahs, but didn’t for the Wallabies, so maybe there’s something in the Foley NSW set-up that isn’t in the Deans Wallaby set-up; perhaps the NSW admin and coach DEMAND dumb, boring kicking percentage rugby from its players, which makes them look crap?
Just a thought…
June 11th 2012 @ 4:25pm
Patonga said | June 11th 2012 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
Thats why the Waratahs are not winning any games…
June 11th 2012 @ 7:19am
bruski said | June 11th 2012 @ 7:19am | Report comment
Psst: It was a different team on Saturday to the one that played on Tuesday, literally.
This is a point I made after the game, the Scotland test side was anything but and it was obvious that we had to keep our powder dry for Saturday night.
I really hope everyone can keep this in mind whilst comparing the two games.
June 11th 2012 @ 9:07am
Jarmen said | June 11th 2012 @ 9:07am | Report comment
Do you keep that in mind when thinking about the 3Nations last year?
Australia was the only nation to field its top team in every single match.
But as is commonly refered to on here the History Books will show Aus won the tournament it will nto say that NZ and SA used matches against each other as dummy runs and preperation for the WC.
Just as the History books will show Scotland beat the Wallabies.
So I hope you keep that in mind
June 11th 2012 @ 9:26am
Damo said | June 11th 2012 @ 9:26am | Report comment
Jarmen, thanks for your selfless devotion in keeping Aussie ‘minds’ in context.
NZ lost the trinations last year because it was not as important to them as saving bodies for a world cup. Or maybe they just weren’t good enough?
And it was just as well for them too because they ended up only one point better than a team that wasn’t as good as Tonga.
So we all “hope you keep that in mind”.
June 11th 2012 @ 9:37am
Richie Mccaw said | June 11th 2012 @ 9:37am | Report comment
Damo, by your logic Australia aren’t as good as every team they have lost to??? If we are playing this silly game we can say Australia aren’t as good as the following teams: Argentina, Fiji, Ireland, Samoa, Scotland and Tonga.
June 11th 2012 @ 9:39am
CraigB said | June 11th 2012 @ 9:39am | Report comment
June 11th 2012 @ 10:06pm
mace 22 said | June 11th 2012 @ 10:06pm | Report comment
Yes damo one point but what a wonderful one point. Also how does australia come out of it to get totally out played and well beaten by a team the could only beat a team that lost to tonga, by one point. Oh never mind I’m getting a head ache trying to come to terms with it all.
June 11th 2012 @ 10:09am
Sage said | June 11th 2012 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Jarmen, the history book shows the WB’s beat the AB’s at Suncorp to take the Tr Nations last year. Correct. They don’t mention it was a full strength AB’s. In there just like the loss to Scotland on Tuesday. Lets not bother with the 4 day turnaround etc but still, what is your point ? Reference by Bruski to the 2 test matches scheduled close together and different team strengths illicits from you a reference back to the Tri last year for what reason in this context ? Is it because you can’t deal with losing or with us winning ? Why dredge this up yet again based on what Bruski said ? Does it really matter to you so much that you can’t allow Bruski a reference to a possible weaker Aus team losing on Tuesday, without going back to last years Tri ? That’s a bit sad.
June 11th 2012 @ 10:52am
Jarmen said | June 11th 2012 @ 10:52am | Report comment
Hold your horses kids,
What I was doing Damo and Sage was highlighting how ignorant and inane bruskis message was by trying to mitigate the win by Scotland over the Wallabies.
I was making the example that the history books do not show that teams were understrength do they?
But of course in your haste to react before comprehending the irony of what your own countrymen is saying never ceases to amze me in the slightest.
The Wallabies deserved the Tri Nations last year they won and they played what was put in front of them, it is not the Wallabies fault that the Boks and ABs decided to treat the 3Nations with a little bit of ho hum attitude. There was a bigger fish to fry last year. But the History books will not show that and nor should they.
The fact that you are even trying to make this into something it is not speaks volumes for your own bias and the fact that you can not deal with losing so I would say Sage go have a look in the mirror.
“Does it really matter to you so much that you can’t allow Bruski a reference to a possible weaker Aus team losing on Tuesday, without going back to last years Tri ? .
Ah hello do you see the irony in what you are saying Sage, you in this sentence alone are also trying to discredit the Scots by claiming the Wallabies were a weak squad, yet you have issue when I bring up that the Boks and ABs did not field their strongest teams possible throughout the 3 Nations. I love it how you have one rule for you and one for the rest.
Now that si what I would call sad!
Its all should coulda woulda but the History books will show Scotland LOST much like the ABs and Boks LOST the Tri-Nations in 2011 and much like how Australia lost to Ireland and the ABs at the WC.
That is the point I was making Sage so take your angry hat off for a moment and stop being so defensive. If you can not see the ironies within what bruski is saying I really do pity you.
But like so many of the articles this week re excuse being made by and for the Wallabies it really is no surprise
June 11th 2012 @ 10:56am
Richie Mccaw said | June 11th 2012 @ 10:56am | Report comment
June 11th 2012 @ 11:26am
Sage said | June 11th 2012 @ 11:26am | Report comment
Losing perspective here Jarmen and stop throwing the word irony around if you don’t really understand what it means. And believe it or not, some will disagree with you and still comprehend what you are writing. The point is Bruski made a passing comment on the strength of Tuesdays team and it was accurate. That then instills a need in you to go back to the Tri last year and trot out the “we weren’t really trying” line. What never ceases to amaze me is the fixation you have with Australia losing and your obvious need to keep ‘us’ in place and in context as Damo notes. The one trying to make this into something is you Jarmen and your need to jump on a cheeky Aus poster who dared to mention that Tuesdays team wasn’t as strong as it could have been. That wasn’t the case in the tri final but you still couldn’t help yourself. And nowhere have I discedited the Scotts. I have in a number of posts congratulated them on a fine and deserved win. No excuses. Find otherwise or go have a look in your own mirror. That’s the beauty of irony, if you actually understand it. I was commenting on your need to ‘correct’ Bruski and the series you used and the need to to do so, not making excuses for the Scotland loss. You won’t find that anywhere. And angry is something I don’t get here Jarmen, hat or not. Moreso intrigued by the ongoing need by the likes of you to keep putting the cheeky Aussies in their place on their rugby site. As far as defensive goes, you do realise where this started don’t you. Bruski’s innocuous comment and then a big defensive effort by you to sort out his recalcitrant bevaviour. Now if only you really understood irony you’d be smiling too rather than all pent up with self righteous endeavour. Relax Jarmen. You fried that bigger fish last year. You should still be basking rather than running around barking at the cheeky Aussies.
June 11th 2012 @ 11:56am
Cattledog said | June 11th 2012 @ 11:56am | Report comment
June 11th 2012 @ 12:50pm
Bigdoggy said | June 11th 2012 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
Up ya go, Sage! Jarmen, give yourself an uppercut…lol
June 11th 2012 @ 6:03pm
bruski said | June 11th 2012 @ 6:03pm | Report comment
Thanks Sage,
It is funny how some from the other side of the ditch get easily upset.
Anyway, looking forward to the next game, moving on unlike some others in here
June 11th 2012 @ 10:31pm
stillmatic1 said | June 11th 2012 @ 10:31pm | Report comment
isnt it ironic that you are trying to put jarmen in his place, sage? dont you often take pot shots at kiwis when it suits?
for someone who claims someone else should waste energy on correcting another poster, what exactly are you doing again?
did bruski last year say the wallabies only won the 3nations due to weakened teams from sa/nz? if not, why? and now why claim that the scottish test really wasnt because the wallabies didnty field a legitimate team? and how does that make it accurate? it doesnt say ” weakened” wallaby team 6 – scotland 9!!
a bit of consistancy might not go astray, and thats all jarmen is pointing out. we should remember the cheeky aussie line when you pinch a win against someone this year and then claim worlds greatest (just like genia is now apparently in the couriermail).
by your reckoning we never should bring up myriad inconsistancies by someone like KPM or yourself or myself, just because it happened a week ago, a month ago, a year ago?
June 11th 2012 @ 11:04pm
Rugby Diehard said | June 11th 2012 @ 11:04pm | Report comment
Handbags away ladies.
StillMatic – think you may still be trying to build that proverbial bridge across the Tasman.
What’s this rubbish about Will Genia claiming the World’s greatest. Mate just because you write it does not make it true. If you are going to make a ridiculous statement like that at least have the decency to back it up.
PS what he probably meant was “we are the world’s second greatest”……..I think that riles you blokes over in the land of the long white cloud enough given Rugby’s status in our respective countries.
June 11th 2012 @ 11:38pm
stillmatic1 said | June 11th 2012 @ 11:38pm | Report comment
rugby diehard, do you not read the paper!! the article in the first paragraph on sunday morning in brisbane after the wallaby win said will genia now should be considered as the worlds best player, not just the worlds best halfback. so put that in your pipe and smoke it, champ.
dont need a bridge champ, im over here making too much money and sleeping with your women!! actually, scratch that latter!!
in summary, how can you ask for evidence of a statement and then go ahead and make up your own evidence to this non-existant (in your mind) statement? that is a pretty good trick, and something that someone with a few hand bags might come up with!!
for the record, my favourite era for rugby, for many different reasons, was when the wallabies were consistantly strong in 98-02 or thereabouts, because the games had everything. now, your media feeds the lowest common denominator of rugby fan a constant amount of sensationalist drivel to generate interest in your bi polar wallaby team. i dont know about you, but consistancy in life is always advisable, or should i go ahead and just sell all my shares now!! follow the herd or not, diehard, follow the herd or not!?
” what he probably meant” lol, cute!!
June 12th 2012 @ 12:40am
Rugby Diehard said | June 12th 2012 @ 12:40am | Report comment
Stilmatic – no i don’t read the Courier Mail mate – but I will give you a tip, if you want to avoid sensational journalism, avoiding the Courier would be a good place to start. By the way I read your comment as saying that Genia was claiming himself to be the world’s best not that the artcile was claiming that. Anyway while we are at it I think he probably is the best 9, who do you reckon if he is not?
June 12th 2012 @ 1:10pm
Sage said | June 12th 2012 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
To answer your questions Stilmatic1 – not at all; and return fire occasionally only; – and your reckoning of my reckoning is getting all a bit too convoluted. I thought I was clear and I disagree with what you think Jarmen was only pointing out. Not surprising. I think enough has been said by me but I appreciate your comments and your need to do so. Actually, what about the double irony of you now looking to ironically try and put me in my place………………..forget it.
June 11th 2012 @ 7:30am
ohtani's jacket said | June 11th 2012 @ 7:30am | Report comment
“Deans, on the other hand, inherited a side that was number five in the world and falling…”
Again you’re perpetuating this myth, this time with the added twist that they were “falling.” I think it’s glaringly obvious why a Kiwi expat in the Australian rugby community would support Robbie Deans, especially one who attends the same lunch functions, but I have nothing negative to say about the test as I thought it was a good win.
Australia will go on to win this series and do so comfortably as the Welsh aren’t as up for it as we were led to believe. One thing that has struck me watching the past few Wales/Australia tests is that Gatland would like Wales to play a very similar game to the Wallabies, but until they learn how to finish off their attacking opportunities I don’t think it’s the way to beat Australia. They’d have to be better at Australia’s game than Australia but they’re not. Hence, why Australia could score when they needed to, but the Welsh couldn’t. The Welsh really needed to dominate Australia up front and in the contact area, taking Pocock out of the game and putting pressure on the Genia/Barnes combination, but they weren’t physical enough in the beginning. They’ve got to stop taking an hour to play themselves into the game, but I can’t see them getting any better from here.
June 11th 2012 @ 7:37am
Red Kev said | June 11th 2012 @ 7:37am | Report comment
“Deans, on the other hand, inherited a side that was number five in the world and falling…”
OJ is dead right. They were 5th based on the vagaries of rankings after a RWC and were 4th before they had even played another match as I recall. Certainly they were back up to three by the end of the next season – helped by Deans’ first five tests in a row that they won (interesting that now he’s had the team for 5 years he can’t better that 5-match streak, despite the fact that was done by a poor inherited team that was falling hey Spiro).
June 11th 2012 @ 7:56am
ohtani's jacket said | June 11th 2012 @ 7:56am | Report comment
Red Kev, you should know the drill by now. When Australia lose it’s because of the cattle. When they win it’s because their gifted players only play well under Deans. This way it’s never really Robbie’s fault but always his credit.
June 11th 2012 @ 9:21am
WobbliesFan said | June 11th 2012 @ 9:21am | Report comment
OJ, well put….Spiro writing about the Wallabies is like Gus Gould writing about the Blues.
June 11th 2012 @ 10:26am
Jack said | June 11th 2012 @ 10:26am | Report comment
That’s right – mimic the AB’s and hold Pocock down after the tackle or come into the breakdown ahead of the ball and just tackle him before he gets to the tackled player. Works a treat.
June 11th 2012 @ 11:51pm
ohtani's jacket said | June 11th 2012 @ 11:51pm | Report comment
It doesn’t really matter how you do it so long as you take Pocock out of the game.
June 12th 2012 @ 12:40am
PeterK said | June 12th 2012 @ 12:40am | Report comment
yes have to rely on systematic, cynical cheating to overcome the opposition threat, instead of beating them fairly
June 12th 2012 @ 8:39am
ohtani's jacket said | June 12th 2012 @ 8:39am | Report comment
Kind of like the tactics Tuqiri, Phil Waugh and others tried on a younger Richie McCaw, only less thuggish.
June 11th 2012 @ 10:27am
stillmissit said | June 11th 2012 @ 10:27am | Report comment
OJ: If you think the Wallabies were on the way back when Deans took over you don’t know much about Australian rugby. We were on one of those long slow slides, we have been on them before, most probably before your time. But us old hands have seen it before and that was why many here give Deans more slack than maybe we should .
I think Spiro’s article states quite clearly what I and many others think. He has done nothing to change my original opinion of him. He has weaknesses, don’t we all? He was what we needed to halt the slide and although he hasn’t taken us to greatness that is good enough for me. My concern is with who comes after him.
Many kiwi’s just don’t get Australian rugby as they come from a culture where rugby attitude is a given. In Australia you are dealing with vastly different beasts who are fickle and ‘girly’ in some aspects and you have to weld them into a fighting team. When it does click it is a wonderful thing like the great 10 years under Alan Jones and Rod McQueen, Deans doesn’t get this side of Australian players but if he is back in NZ his coaching job will get exponentially easier.
June 11th 2012 @ 11:03am
KiwiDave said | June 11th 2012 @ 11:03am | Report comment
Interseting stillmissit. Are you say it is not in the Wallaby DNA
June 11th 2012 @ 12:59pm
Bigdoggy said | June 11th 2012 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
No, Kiwi Dave, he’s just saying that NZ ruby culture and Aussie rugby culture r two different things. Not better, not worse, just different. My worry with Robbie D is that he’s trying to coach a Wallaby side having come from that NZ culture where he was hugely successful. Australian teams need Australian coaches. Also, Robbie’s surrounded by assistants that he didn’t necessarily choose. Who the hell is Tony McGahan, for example? When this muppet got the job from the ARU he spouted off to the Irish press about how he was going to b Director of Coaching for the Wallabies. He was wrong but imagine how betrayed Deans felt. Horses for courses, bring on Link…it’s just one man’s opinion…I’m just sayin’…
June 11th 2012 @ 1:37pm
The Great G Nepia said | June 11th 2012 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
BigDoggy’s hit the nail on the head. Robbie Deans is trying to transport his successful Crusader’s formula to the Wallabies, but it doesn’t work because the skill set of the players as well as the culture are both different. Australia has always been about playing ALL OUT PASSIONATE RUGBY, as the Reds showed last year, not pick and go forwards striving for dominance up front marshalled by a world class tactical and kicking fly-half.
June 11th 2012 @ 11:33pm
PeterK said | June 11th 2012 @ 11:33pm | Report comment
dont agree re coaches. Compare White to Foley or Graham.
We need world class coaches.
June 12th 2012 @ 12:07am
ohtani's jacket said | June 12th 2012 @ 12:07am | Report comment
The Wallabies only fell to 5th because points exchanges are doubled during the World Cup. They were the second ranked side before the World Cup and they’re second ranked side now. Any other coach would have coached them to at least a 50% record and second place. I would argue that it’s the things Deans hasn’t been able to achieve thus far which have been far more pertinent, but like I said it was a good win and I don’t think it’s the time to be negative.
June 11th 2012 @ 12:14pm
Cattledog said | June 11th 2012 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
I think it’s fair to say that we rarely agree, OJ, however, you’re right about Spiro’s support for Deans. His article was a bit over the top, but typical of journos after any Wallaby victory. This article would be more akin to a series win three nil rather than the redemption after an absolute howler against Scotland.
However, to make sure we keep perspective on this ‘agreement’ thing, unlike you, I’m far from thinking the Wallabies will win this series comfortably. In fact, I tend to think they could well struggle if they don’t get some of their 1st choice players back before the 3rd test.
The 13 unanswered points to bring the score to 20-19 shows the fragility of this Wallabies team. They should have put them to the sword at 20-6 but didn’t. Deans remains very much on shaky ground, IMO, and only a series whitewash followed by a strong Four Nations should make his position safe.
Of course this is only conjecture on my behalf as I’m sure there’s much more to the contracts that meet the eye. However, whilst once a strong supporter of Deans, there has been far too much mediocrity in certain aspects of his coaching for such support to continue.
June 11th 2012 @ 5:53pm
Frank O'Keeffe said | June 11th 2012 @ 5:53pm | Report comment
‘I think it’s fair to say that we rarely agree, OJ, however, you’re right about Spiro’s support for Deans. His article was a bit over the top…’
Seconded.
It was a good win and all, but as far as I’m concerned, the Wallabies haven’t improved under Deans. Let’s look at his rap sheet:
* Biggest loss in Australian rugby history to South Africa.
* Two losses to Scotland.
* One tied Ireland Test, and one lost World Cup Test to Ireland.
* A 10 Test losing streak to New Zealand
* No Bledisloe Cup
* Persistence with men like Giteau at 10 and Burgess at 9.
* No Grand Slam
In his favour:
* 1 Tri Nations trophy
* First Test win in South Africa for 8 years in 2008.
* Some great rugby being played against South Africa in 2010 and a great Test against France in 2010
* Brought Pocock and Genia into the squad.
Things maybe looked okay for a period in 2008. But he’s done nothing Eddie Jones could do. In fact with his back against the wall, Eddie Jones tended to make the Wallabies lift.
He’s got a worse record than Eddie Jones. And if Eddie Jones were the coach right now he’d be hated. None of the Wallabies sides under Deans’ reign have been as bad as the 2005 Wallabies, but the 2009 Wallabies come close!
June 12th 2012 @ 2:01am
Parisien said | June 12th 2012 @ 2:01am | Report comment
Thanks Frank.
I was going to ask if someone wanted to write a balanced article about Deans’ record – the arguments for and against, the good things he has done as coach and the stupid things as well. You don’t want to go further in your analysis do you? I think Red Kev or Cattledog suggested that Deans’ Wallabies need to win the Wales series convincingly and perform strongly in the 4N for Deans to stay on probation, and anything less than this, he should go. He has had nearly five years. I’m worried about the Lions series and don’t believe Deans will coach the Wallabies to produce their best individually or collectively for a series win.
June 11th 2012 @ 4:00pm
jeznez said | June 11th 2012 @ 4:00pm | Report comment
shhhh OJ, I hope Gatland doesn’t read your comment because I completely agree with your comments on what the Welsh are doing wrong and should do instead.
June 11th 2012 @ 7:32am
Dean Vincent said | June 11th 2012 @ 7:32am | Report comment
On a pedantic note, Genia beat James Hook to score not Halfpenny. Halfpenny shifted to the wing when George North went off and Hook went to full-back.
On the game as a whole, pretty good game all in all, don’t buy into this rubbish that Wales lost because of the greater pace of the game. Wallabies were simply more clinical in finishing their opportunities and were given a number of these opportunities through aimless Welsh kicking. In the 6 nations, Wales weren’t punished for these errors on Saturday they were.
Thought Genia was outstanding and comprehensively outplayed Phillips at half-back. This created greater time and space for the Wallaby backline. In contrast Phillips was slow and ponderous at times and the Welsh backs often took the ball standing still and not at pace, despite this, Wales created plenty but did not execute. Priestland’s knock on with a huge overlap being a prime example.
Also thought Deans used the bench well and Howley did not.
Saturday’s game has the makings of a classic and will be a true reflection of both teams I think.
June 11th 2012 @ 7:45am
Gordo said | June 11th 2012 @ 7:45am | Report comment
The fullback when Genia scored was Hook, not Halfpenny. Halfpenny had been moved to the wing to replace North.
I agree that Joubert is the best ref in the world right now, however this was not one of his better games. He let it flow, as he always does and should, but he missed a few obvious calls like Wales being well off-side when Ioane took the quick tap and a few times they were clearly holding on in the tackle, and also made a few calls against Pocock (and once when he somehow mistook Palu for Pocock…) that we’re incorrect.
I’m not sure what the British commentators were using as their basis for claims that Joubert favoured the Wallabies (noted by gorman above), other than a lack of understanding of the game, which seems to be rather common up there unfortunately, at least among the English supporters and administration. I hope the commentators views aren’t shared by anyone at the IRB. Even though there were a few things missed, I don’t think I’ve seen a game where there weren’t, and Joubert is head and shoulders above the rest of the world’s refs at the moment in the average quality of his performances.
In relation to Deans, while he has certainly made some shockingly big mistakes in his time (Scotland x 2, Samoa, no back-up 7 at the cup) no one can deny he has done great things in terms of player development and Australian rugby will be much better for his time here when he leaves (unlike Eddie Jones who was possibly the worst thing to ever happen to Australian rugby, evidenced by the comment in the article about what he inherited then left behind). Hopefully Deans has learnt from his mistakes and can improve his overall percentages by the time he leaves.
June 11th 2012 @ 7:58am
sixo_clock said | June 11th 2012 @ 7:58am | Report comment
How the players play, commit, show courage and use their heads are the only factors which decide Rugby contests. That is out of the coach’s hands. Things like Benn being a dawdler, conserving his energy for most of the match but secure in the knowledge that he is our best loose head means he doesn’t have to do much else to keep his place. Pointless, aimless, fruitless kicking by a halfback also sure of his next selection. Selfish running by a centre who cannot conceive of supporting another player for a quick pass-repass exchange to ensure a try.
Many Roarers believe we don’t have the ‘cattle’, it is true up to a point. What we don’t have the is the capacity to blend, merge into a team and that has been true for every coach since Jones,A and McQueen held the reins. No-one can coach a rabble, they have to want to form something greater than the sum and that is Dingo’s only hurdle yet to overcome.
June 11th 2012 @ 12:24pm
Cattledog said | June 11th 2012 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
If you think blending and merging this team is Dingo’s only hurdle Six’O, then you’re a most forgiving individual. He needs to consider team selection carefully and then using these selections correctly INCLUDING the bench! Hey, if this isn’t his forte, then he needs to direct that responsibility to someone who can do it. That’s what makes a great coach…someone who can use their resources to the maximum benefit aka Rod McQueen and more recently, Sir Graham Henry!
June 11th 2012 @ 8:13pm
sixo_clock said | June 11th 2012 @ 8:13pm | Report comment
CD, Lord Graham of Henry-on-Todd could have selected just about any team from the many options and those chosen would repay him with solid teamwork. Only occasionally does NZ toss up a individualist freak, you could probably name all of them. However Australian players just don’t get it, and the results show. If charged with selections the first priority should be to choose team players first to last and to hell with X-factor, talent and speed or size. I don’t think Dingo has yet to realise just how determined Aussies are to be different, to not subsume their individualism to the needs of the team. In spite of the results they still think some act of individual brilliance is going to win the game. Rugby is and always will be a marathon which requires a collective will bending the reluctant opposition. The teams who understand this will be on the winning side of the register and that is all we want from them, to be in the game at the end to win or at least hold their heads up after.
We have the players but we don’t have the willingness to act as if we were part of some single organism. Jones,A and McQueen had vastly different styles but for both men the teams they oversaw became such a force. If Dingo is anything he is too nice to them. I cannot idly blame any coach of an Australian side because it requires an extraordinary effort to get them to want to act as they should. Jones,E, Knuckles couldn’t do it, what has changed? They are still having to deal with players who have never been coached well enough in their junior years to have acquired the Rugby Brain and consequently lapse back into fantasyland and everyone seems to want to blame the off-field staff. Poppycock!
The AB-Irish game was an awesome display of a team which sees instantly opportunities and then methodically puts the required formula into action. Only first game twitchiness kept their score lower than most of their fans expected. The good thing about this period in the Australian Rugby story is our pack now believes it has the responsibility to decide the outcome and will use the backs when they see fit. That subtle change will see us be more competitive and for that you can thank Dingo.