A Wallaby series report card
The Wallabies have just white-washed the highest ranked team in Europe by winning three hard fought, closely contested games. Apart from the obvious positive of the three nil series win, there were many positives, many tactics that worked, and some areas for improvement.
What was most impressive from the coaching perspective was that Robbie Deans somehow drew together players from five under performing provincial sides to beat the highly regarded Welsh.
The Wallabies’ coach can be proud of some of his improved, subtle yet intelligent tactics led well by David Pocock, Will Genia and Berrick Barnes.
We should give a great deal of credit first to the performance of the forwards’ loose play. Apart from Pocock’s obvious world class pilfering, all the forwards can be credited with having generally dominated at the breakdown.
This was much to the dismay of the Welsh coaches who began to make excuses and cry foul because they had no answer to not only Pocock’s superiority but to our ‘pod systems’ in place to support our ball carriers.
Another area of strength was our new halves combination. Genia’s sniping runs initially cut through the Welsh defences, which in turn placed less pressure on Barnes in the next two tests. It was also great to see some innovative rugby from these two.
Barnes choosing to attempt drop goals at tactical moments, kick long from quick penalties, as well as Genia’s decision to tap and go from in front of his goal posts are great examples of purposeful decision making, otherwise known as intelligent rugby. There were many more pleasing examples from the Wallabies.
Another tactic that worked well was the scrum half and fly half often joining the fullback as our back three in defence. This is a consolidation of Deans’ tactics from last year but it is now working much better.
The obvious advantage is that it gives us our best kicking options from the back and yet it still gives us the option of creative counter attacking raids when our centres and wingers track back in support.
The selection and general performance of Pat McCabe and Robe Horne in the centres is also worth noting because this helped sure up our go forward, despite the criticism of it stifling our attack out wide. It also gave us some extra weight in defence in the mid-field from set piece and from phase ball out wide.
Deans deserves some extra credit for adopting the progressive tactic of playing centre-a-side in defence where possible, which helped stifle the Welsh when they went wide on many occasions.
At the right times the Wallabies were clinical in their try scoring and some resulted from excellent passages of play. Still, many may say we did not score enough tries.
The truth is, try scoring is relative to the opposition. The Wallabies scored as many tries in the first test as the rest of Wales’ opponents managed in the entire Six Nations combined.
The Wallabies scored only a further two tries in the final two games of the series, which can either be viewed as an area of concern or as indicative of how well drilled the Welsh defence normally is.
The Wallabies can also be happy with their own defence. Wales, who have some state of the art attacking weaponry, managed only one good try a game. Their tries to Cuthbert, North and Ryan Jones were deserved from the good lead up play and so were not really a result of any atrociously poor Wallaby defence.
Their try to Davies in the second test was a piece of misfortune but also a result from a tactical area where we need to improve. Unfortunately it was also an issue in the extended lead up to Jones’ try, but I’ll expand on this tactical failure shortly.
Fearful this might now seem somewhat of a ‘puff piece’ there are still many areas the Wallabies must improve in order to have a chance at winning the inaugural Rugby Championship.
There is no surprise that the biggest requirement for improvement is in the set pieces.
Benn Robinson was disappointingly over-powered by Adam Jones at scrum time and I fear this is a complicated problem with a controversial solution.
Robinson is our best loose head and his position in the team is not in question. We either put up with this or we look deeper into his lack of success. Sharpe for all his good work around the park is a weakness in the scrum behind Robinson.
This weakness may also have something to do with one of our flankers, namely Higginbotham, releasing himself from pushing duty too early and too often. This last point is easily fixed by better coaching but we do need a more powerful lock behind our loose head if we wish to improve our scrum.
It must be said that Sitaleki Timani made a big difference on Kepu’s side of the scrum on Saturday. Deans may need to persist with Timani for the greater good and either ask him to push behind Robinson or extend this positive by selecting our two most powerful locks at scrum time, namely Timani and Douglas.
This would be at the expense of our line out jumping ability and although this also is an area that needs to improve, it is the lesser of two evils.
For this to work we would then need a better third option in the line out. One might get the feeling we need Rocky to return to the fold. Alas, if Elsom’s days are over than Dave Dennis seems the best option as the alternative in the lineout. He does have the added advantage of a much higher work rate than Higginbotham.
Another glaringly obvious area that we fell short in was that our blindside wingers often failed to drop back as cover whenever the full back joined the attacking line. In the second match we used the blindside winger as the ball runner and because the full back was also up, the bad pass led to a kick through with nobody at home and to an inevitable Jonathan Davies try.
On Saturday there were two occasions where something similar happened with Beale up in the line. One such occasion led to the eventual Ryan Jones’ try and in the final minutes of the match, when Hook kicked ahead, this tactical failure almost cost us the game.
The last area that Australia needs to improve comes back to the original point about Deans bringing together players from the under performing franchises. What we need to do is ensure the franchises have a consistent approach in adopting the majority of the national side’s tactics.
The last thing we want is to end up is the situation in Ireland with its feeder clubs playing completely different styles of rugby. Munster for example play 10-man rugby where as Leinster play expansive rugby. Join them together and you’ve got a schizophrenic Ireland side that often implodes as they did on Saturday and at other times plays well, as they did the Saturday before.
With more test standard players than the other franchises, Deans should insist that the Waratahs in particular follow his lead, including playing a much quicker brand of rugby. The other Australian franchises generally do, but it is time the Waratahs played much more like the Wallabies, for everyone’s benefit.
The Wallabies receive a B+ for the series. Keep up the good work!
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- SPIRO: ‘Captain Magic’ Quade Cooper goes down with all flags flying (333)
- Deans confirms no spot for Quade Cooper (281)
- Want to beat the Lions? Pick Quade Cooper (229)
- SPIRO: All Blacks learning to live without Carter (218)
- Wallabies’ six worst-kept secrets confirmed (204)
- A lesson in Deans-speak (154)
- Inside the mind of Robbie Deans (150)
- Sean O’Brien misses Lions Test selection (32)
- Fresh legs for France against All Blacks
- All Blacks’ Ranger confirms French move (3)
- Lions team to play Wallabies announced – Warburton starts as captain (108)
- All Blacks Hansen backs Wallabies to win Lions series
- Wallabies team to play Lions confirmed, with bench revealed (98)
- If all the Wallabies leak this week is a team, then happy days (224)
- A rugby series twelve years in the making (7)
- Brian Smith says referees will be crucial (6)
- British and Irish Lions teams post WW2 (part 3) (15)
- Fifteen reasons why the Lions will beat the Wallabies (33)
- Lions vs Wallabies: the teams I’d pick (17)
- My Waratahs vs Lions experience (2)
- Brumbies vs British and Irish Lions: Tour match live scores, blog (220)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Rugby Union, wallabies

June 25th 2012 @ 9:29am
Johnno said | June 25th 2012 @ 9:29am | Report comment
A B almost a B plus but a B. Remember Melbourne how close they came to losing and the Deans disaster in Newcastle in awful weather, and Samoa too last year. I hope people don’t forget Newcastle.
June 25th 2012 @ 10:57am
KiwiDave said | June 25th 2012 @ 10:57am | Report comment
You can put your petrol soaked effigy of Robbie Dean’s back in the closet for another couple of month Johnno. The lynch mob are content with Robbies performance
Instead of harping on about a loss to Scotland in terrible conditions why not reflect on 5 wins in a row over Wales in the last 12 months and a tri nation trophy secured.
June 25th 2012 @ 11:29am
Red Kev said | June 25th 2012 @ 11:29am | Report comment
I prefer a voodoo doll, but each to his own.
The real concern is that Deans still doesn’t select intelligently – Alexander and Hooper have no place on the bench in the current set up; and he seems unable to teach the backline to pass the ball – Kafe called it early “all one out runners in attack for the Wallabies”.
June 25th 2012 @ 11:34am
SkinnyKid said | June 25th 2012 @ 11:34am | Report comment
your last point a agree with. Its a back line of blockes who rarely take the ball at speed into gaps or pass. Its either a crash ball into two defenders, which is fine but you need a good fast clear out and quick ball…which we dont.
If its not that its a lateral pass from a standing still Barnes to someone outside him who stops, steps and trys to multi step his way through….almost like they have been playing too much touch.
June 26th 2012 @ 12:54am
sph45 said | June 26th 2012 @ 12:54am | Report comment
Firstly, I thought we had pretty fast clean outs at the rucks. And secondly, I’m not convinced we are limited to crash ball. I think there have been some superb offloads, such as from TPN, and, while it isn’t intuitive, McCabe is also passing and offloading more often than he is given credit for.
June 26th 2012 @ 1:44am
SkinnyKid said | June 26th 2012 @ 1:44am | Report comment
Really? one offload by a hooker?
Our rucks were fine for one or two phases but weren’t good enough after that.
Half of the problem is most of our attack is, like I mentioned above, too much like they are playing touch footy….blokes get caught too high and are brought to ground in a mess meaning slow ball.
June 25th 2012 @ 11:47am
Johnno said | June 25th 2012 @ 11:47am | Report comment
give me steve chanson any day over robbie deans kiwi dave. and same with john mitchell over dingo deans. John mitchell needs a new job he can happily have the wallabies head job i rate match.
June 25th 2012 @ 1:02pm
El Gamba said | June 25th 2012 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
“The lynch mob are content with Robbies performance”
Unfortunately I don’t think so Kiwi Dave, the odd peep here and there but in general they are just waiting to pounce..
June 25th 2012 @ 9:36am
Jutsie said | June 25th 2012 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Good write up. Almost agree with everything you say, although I may bring the grade down to a B or B-.
Areas of concern:
- scrum! (although not as bad as last year, impressed with the fightback on the welsh line before the jones try, had that sinking feeling when the first penalty was blown by joubert, was expecting the usual multiple penalties leading to a prop being sin binned and/or a penalty try)
- back line cohesion
-consistency in the lineout, was really good first two games but fell to pieces in last
Areas that impressed:
-defensive structures
-kick-offs (this has been a weakness in previous years but this series we were secure when receiving and AAC/Horne put good pressure on the welsh 2nd rowers too)
-accuracy and intensity at the breakdown, its easy to say pocock was a one man show but i think the whole pack deserves a pat on the back for winning the collision in all 3 games.
-Composure, usually we are the team that panic in a close game
June 25th 2012 @ 9:38am
Jutsie said | June 25th 2012 @ 9:38am | Report comment
Also, good use of the bench, well done for learning from your mistakes robbie.
June 25th 2012 @ 10:33am
Justin2 said | June 25th 2012 @ 10:33am | Report comment
I noted yesterday that I think its no coincidence that the bench use has improved due to Tony McGahan being in the box. Cant prove it one way or another but timing of the improvement seems to line up…
June 25th 2012 @ 10:47am
Jutsie said | June 25th 2012 @ 10:47am | Report comment
Well whoever instigated it, it was certainly a big improvement and in all 3 games at least one of the benchies made a big impact. Hooper in the first, harris/A. Faiinga last week and dennis yesterday.
Hopefully Mcgahan/Deans/Blades can compliment each others talents.
June 25th 2012 @ 10:08am
Bigbaz said | June 25th 2012 @ 10:08am | Report comment
I agree with what you’ve written,get the scrum right then worry about the rest,it is a second row problem,not a prop problem. Also could someone explain to me why when we have a penalty advantage 20mtres out directly in front,rather than try to the bitter end for a try we go for a field goal,We are going to get 3 points anyway,why not do every thing in your power to get 7.
June 25th 2012 @ 10:35am
Justin2 said | June 25th 2012 @ 10:35am | Report comment
Couldnt agree more BB. Why bother with a FG when you can chance your arm for free on a try? People applauding that stuff need their heads read. Especially early in a match.
June 25th 2012 @ 11:25am
Blinky Bill of Bellingen said | June 25th 2012 @ 11:25am | Report comment
My Missus was making exactly the same point.
Initially I thought she had not appreciated that we had a penalty & explained ‘that’s why Berrick went for the drop’.
She of course looked at me as if I was the dumbest one in the room (you know the look). Then it finally dawned that she knew precisely what should have been attempted. “Just go for it” I think was her advice.
June 25th 2012 @ 1:10pm
El Gamba said | June 25th 2012 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
Yeah, we have George Gregan to blame if you recall. Settle the game and take the points is the theory which does have its place at times. Joubert generally plays a good advantage so I agree we should have had the shot at the try.
June 25th 2012 @ 1:31pm
beyond the stump said | June 25th 2012 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
Couldn’t agree more. Perhaps you should lose your advantage as soon as you take a shot for field goal? It is a point scoring opportunity after all.
June 25th 2012 @ 1:53pm
Jutsie said | June 25th 2012 @ 1:53pm | Report comment
I think a couple of years ago they refs were trialling interpreting attempting a field goal as having taken the advantage although it didn’t last long. I agree with you they should bring it back.
June 25th 2012 @ 11:28pm
Mick said | June 25th 2012 @ 11:28pm | Report comment
I think when you have a penalty advantage in the opposition’s 22, this is the 1 time when I condone an attacking (league-style) kick. Either a grubber or a bomb. Either there’s a chance you get a lucky try, or you just come back for the shot at goal. Like others have said, attempting a drop goal is illogical and isn’t using the full benefit of the advantage.
June 25th 2012 @ 5:31pm
The Werewolf said | June 25th 2012 @ 5:31pm | Report comment
A good question. When is it okay to move towards the drop goal?
If there is no momentum and you will get the ball back either from a penalty or because you will get it back from a return drop out, the drop goal is a fine option. Not 3min into the match mind you but only because you want the crowd to stay on your side. Other than the entertainment aspect, tactically it was a good option because we got the ball back.
A better example of when to go for a drop goal that keeps the crowd happy as well as it being responsible game management was in the first match.
Wales’ attempt at a drop goal on the stroke of half time was certainly the wrong time to go for it. They were too far out and they were not going to get the ball back from a miss.
June 25th 2012 @ 9:27pm
jeznez said | June 25th 2012 @ 9:27pm | Report comment
Werewolf, if you have shaky kicker and you want two bites of the cherry the drop kick can make sense. However Barnes was in form this series and the kick was from right in front. The penalty had to be assumed it would go over, therefore no benefit in taking a drop in this situation. Everyone calling for the try mirrors the discussion that went on around our table on Saturday
June 25th 2012 @ 11:18pm
The Werewolf said | June 25th 2012 @ 11:18pm | Report comment
If you read my comment I don’t think taking a drop goal option in the first minutes of a test is going to gain much praise and so therefore it was a bigger picture mistake. I take yours and many people’s view point that they don’t wish to see them in that scenario but it was tactically sound and it was intelligent rugby with my reasoning this;
Clearly it was situation of “we’ll take the 3 points thank you very much” and don’t forget if you run the play and go for a try you do risk losing the advantage. 3 points is 3 points whether it’s a drop goal or a penalty so I don’t have a problem with it tactically.
It also could have been that in Saturday’s case they may have made the call to work for a drop earlier than when the referee put his arm up. That i can’t be sure.
June 26th 2012 @ 1:00am
sph45 said | June 26th 2012 @ 1:00am | Report comment
And that’s the nub of the issue – if you keep pressing forward you can lose your advantage, and so going for the try becomes an all or nothing decision.
Genuine question: are there rules regarding the ‘length of the advantage’? Is it related to territory gained? Is it arbitrary, and therefore up to the referee’s discretion?
Great summary Werewolf. I particularly appreciate the lack of vitriol in your analyses.
June 26th 2012 @ 1:46am
SkinnyKid said | June 26th 2012 @ 1:46am | Report comment
refs digression I think.
Also lots more ground and time allowed in the ‘red zone’ ..which seems to have reached to about 35 meters out these days.
June 25th 2012 @ 11:39pm
jeznez said | June 25th 2012 @ 11:39pm | Report comment
WW I understood your point regarding timing – my issue was it was a gift three penalty kick so no need to have two cracks at it. Agree you can lose advantage if you have a go but as another commetator mentioned above and as we saw later in the game Joubert plays a long advantage. That was my issue with it tactically.
I used to hate the old Gregan intentional knock on as well – at least having a drop goal attempt is a little more positive.
June 25th 2012 @ 10:08am
Peabody said | June 25th 2012 @ 10:08am | Report comment
So it’s all Sharpe’s fault the scrum was crap? What a joke. Sitaleki Timani shouldn’t be a Wallaby. The scrum went better last week with Simmonds on.
June 25th 2012 @ 10:16am
Hoy said | June 25th 2012 @ 10:16am | Report comment
I think winning has blinded a few people to our problems. Wales were not the great attacking team we were led to believe they would be. This whole series came down to penalty kicks really.
So a few thoughts:
Barnes – Again, the fact we won glosses over his limitations. Our backline did not do well with the ball in hand. Sure he kicked well for penalties all series, and made a telling break in the second game, but apart from that? Do we expect to beat South Africa or New Zealand with him at 10?
Rob Horne – This bloke bombd a try earlier in the series, and very nearly bombed another in the last game. I can’t see the promise others do with this bloke.
The Scrum – We fix it, it gets broken, we fix it, it gets broken. Why bring on a replacement prop for a 5 metre defensive scrum? One who is regularly penalised? I don’t get it.
I am not sold on this win, and will not be glossing over things because of the win. I said earlier in other topics that Wales were not really in the hunt in any of the games except the scoreboard. That is a worry to me, that we can dominate, yet still go down to the wire.
Look at it this way: Why can’t our team put teams to the sword like the All Blacks? Why can’t we beat teams by 50 like they do? They changed their line up for the third test, and smased a team who thought they must have been in with a chance. Where is our team that can do that to the opposition?
We have some shocks coming I think. And maybe 3-0 is good enough for some, but the way it was 3-0 scares me to death when we come up against a good team intent on desctructon.
June 25th 2012 @ 10:22am
formeropenside said | June 25th 2012 @ 10:22am | Report comment
We just beat Wales at home last year, and we are surprised to beat them in Australia? Mind you, Deans did handicap himself with his squad and matchday selections, but despite his beat efforts, we somehow scraped two one-point wins.
Agree with pretty much all Hoy has to say.
June 25th 2012 @ 10:39am
ohtani's jacket said | June 25th 2012 @ 10:39am | Report comment
Considering that the alternatives were injured, I think you need to give Barnes some credit for stepping up and doing the job. I don’t think he’s the guy moving forward but for this particular series he won Australia the matches.
June 25th 2012 @ 11:28am
Hoy said | June 25th 2012 @ 11:28am | Report comment
I agree OJ, but he is not the messiah people think right now, because he kicked penalties for us. The wins shouldn’t cloud judgment.
Australians are getting a little carried away with 3-0 figures, when the games from the Wallabies were anything but what has been suggested by some.
Wales were not the great team we were led to believe. I felt in each game, although they came close on the score board, they were not in the game in any really threatening manner, and yet they came so close in all three games. What does it say about our team that a chance dropped ball, and a kick ahead by the opposition can win them the game? And it almost happened in the last two games.
I hink the truth is, once again, this series glosses our problems that need fixing. Our selections are one massive problem. Horne botched one try, and almost botched another in exactly the same manner. Yet we won. So he will live another day. That is wrong in my eyes.
Anyway… Life goes on.
June 25th 2012 @ 1:28pm
DingoBob said | June 25th 2012 @ 1:28pm | Report comment
I agree Hoy and the problem I have is that I don’t believe this current team can beat the AB’s and that a different team may be picked for the upcoming test series. If this is the case I wander why this team played against Wales and why they didn’t just pick the team that can beat the AB’s and Saffers.
June 25th 2012 @ 1:36pm
Who Needs Melon said | June 25th 2012 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
I agree with OJ. Barnes has just had 2 MOTM performances in a row and I think played better than he has in years. You might want to wish that better options were available but you can’t expect more than that from Barnes.
BUT – and this will swing me around to agreeing with one of your points Hoy – Barnes is the ONLY guy in the backline (not counting halfback here of course) that can/will pass. Horne bombed a try last week because he didn’t pass. And he ALMOST (and probably should have) bombed one this week for the same reason. But he’s not alone: McCabe, AAC and Digby are the same – all very, VERY reluctant to pass the ball. I think McCabe is getting a bit better. Beale can pass to of course – although he threw a couple of shockers on the weekend – but from fullback…?
Compare Horne or AAC to Conrad Smith in the passing department? Chalk and cheese. Even Mortlock – generally considered a bash-and-barger – think of that little interplay between he and Vuna earlier this year leading up to his try for the Rebels. That’s what smart rugby is all about.
We need AT LEAST one center that is able to pass. Candidates:
– Tapuai
– Barnes
– JOC?
– Any others?
June 25th 2012 @ 2:09pm
jameswm said | June 25th 2012 @ 2:09pm | Report comment
Tapuai is the best all round centre we have (acceleration, ball-playing, defense, strength in contact etc). He should be bred for 13.
June 25th 2012 @ 2:26pm
Justin2 said | June 25th 2012 @ 2:26pm | Report comment
I know I am his only fan
but AF actually gave an early pass to AAC from about 60m out down the right touch line in the 2nd half. AAC took off with AF and one other player in support inside. Guess what happened?
AAC dismissed the chance to pass back AF and the other support who could have really set something worthy up and ran into one if not two defenders. The moment was lost.
It was blurry awful but would he get a bollocking from anyone?
June 25th 2012 @ 3:27pm
Who Needs Melon said | June 25th 2012 @ 3:27pm | Report comment
Yep. Fair call. AF is a candidate too.
To be honest I prefer AF at OC to Tapuai. Tapuai seems more like a 12 to me. But I think I’m just biased in terms of body shape – I think of 12s as smaller and/or more nuggety and 13s as taller and more athletic.
June 25th 2012 @ 3:49pm
Dasher said | June 25th 2012 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
I saw both the AAC and Horne “incidents” and thought exactly the same thing.
AAC butchered that excellent opportunity and Horne … wow, what a hog. I wouldn’t want to be a winger outside of him.
June 25th 2012 @ 11:45am
Blinky Bill of Bellingen said | June 25th 2012 @ 11:45am | Report comment
Sadly I think Hoy has it pretty right. Unless of course I’m totally wrong.
There are supporters who come down heavy on other fans that look at the 3-0 win who say ‘ yes a win but not good enough’. The glass half full argument is used by those happy with the win. IMHO the AB’s & Bokke will smash the glass. So whether it’s 1/2 full or 1/2 empty is a mute point.
I also think that our hopes for improvement are way too reliant on the return of so called ‘stars’ like JOC, Mitchell & QC. Surely Kurtley making the run on team showed loud and clear that these guys may not be the immediate answer to our woes, especially when it’s hard yards & discipline that’s required.
And having Rob Horne in the run on team based on his previous bombed try, makes me wonder ‘what’s he got to do to be benched’?
June 25th 2012 @ 6:09pm
my2cents said | June 25th 2012 @ 6:09pm | Report comment
The trouble, as I see it is that the basic stuff you get taught at school, like drawing and passing, just isn’t being done by the top level guys. In Horne’s case, in both the bombed try and the nearly bombed one, all he had to do was straighten, draw the tackler, then pass to his unmarked winger. That should be an instinct for all backs I reckon, but hardly any of our guys seem to even think about it. And our handling, which should be impeccable with all the training they do, was attrocious! Basic stuff, easily fixed, but seemingly always ignored.
June 26th 2012 @ 10:33am
sixo_clock said | June 26th 2012 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Well put Hoy, there was no sense of satisfaction with the Wallabies potential from that series.
I believe the problem is the sense of entitlement that affects some players adversely. To your list I would add Genia who seems to want to impose himself and make rash decisions particularly in the kicking dept. Only a stint out of the squad or on the bench can cure him of this deeply felt but incorrect belief, The ABs will crucify this tactic.
Higgers is out of his depth, he is an impact replacement only. We need to replace Rocky and only a Fardy, Pyle, Power will be satisfactory, whichever is the hardest worker, I’d start with Pyle.
TPN is too inaccurate to hold his spot, Moore is marginally better but no longer has the attacking penetration. In hookers we are weak so new blood given the brief to study Andrew Hoare’s game and whomever comes closest in the last Super games gets the gig. Also our hooker must be trained to plant both feet at scrum time to hold up the props to keep the penalties away, it requires only a momentary support and can push or strike when it steadies.
Whatever team runs out next time they must be hungry, worried about retaining their position and prepared to work like hell to keep it.
That we won 3-0 with those players is encouraging but not from the point that we really should have done some trialling/blooding and apart from the Vuna failure, bloody nothing. We can only hope that Dingo and selectors are playing the long game and do have a strategy to get the best out of the available talent.
June 26th 2012 @ 3:42pm
sph45 said | June 26th 2012 @ 3:42pm | Report comment
Yeah, our team is a total disaster. Bench one of our best players, change the rest of the team root and branch. Then complain about something else.
June 26th 2012 @ 4:04pm
Mike said | June 26th 2012 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
Well put …
June 27th 2012 @ 7:52am
sixo_clock said | June 27th 2012 @ 7:52am | Report comment
Petulant Over-reaction?
So you are happy with Genia’s 3-4 steps before the pass as he did all the first half, slowing the attack, letting the D line advance etc. His totally predictable snipes which the Welsh read very well and chopped him down. He does not seem to have any ability to adjust without a coach’s input and that in a halfback is totally lame. He has tickets on himself and does not ever entertain any self-critical thinking. He has some skills but not a world-class beating set so bring on a journeyman who will act solely as the pivot and let the others get good ball to do the job.
June 27th 2012 @ 12:40pm
Mike said | June 27th 2012 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
Sixo’clock,
I didn’t see it that way. I thought Genia’s service from the ruck was quite crisp through the game. Yes it probably was somewhat better and used more often in the second half, but that may have reflected the ebb and flow of the game.
I would have thought a half back who can run effectively as well as distribute is good to have – puts uncertainty in the minds of the opposition.
if a journeyman pivot would be a better option, who do you have in mind?
June 28th 2012 @ 9:22am
sixo_clock said | June 28th 2012 @ 9:22am | Report comment
White is the current standout, though Phipps and McKibbin both give reasonable service.
As for his adjustment in the second half, it was too late. He had already put his runners in two minds, after 40 minutes freshness is lost, he didn’t mix it up to create that uncertainty into their D so I stand by my point. Will Genia thinks he is indispensable and he isn’t, he thinks he is a great player but he has flaws big enough to cost games. When the stakes go up later this year he will most likely be exposed and only by introducing a rotating set of players for all positions (that we can manage) will we ensure that players go onto the field hungry with a point to prove. It is simply good management applied to sport.
June 28th 2012 @ 10:34am
Mike said | June 28th 2012 @ 10:34am | Report comment
Well we will have to agree to disagree on that one. I cannot see a justification for dropping Genia in favour of White . I don’t think Genia put his runners in two minds and I do think the idea of a “rotating set of players for all positions” is precisely what we DON’T want to do. We should be choosing the best available players in each position and keeping them there for every test, unless injury requires a replacement.
i can’t comment on Genia thinking he is indispensable or thinking he is a great player, because I don’t know what he thinks.
The major “flaw” I see in Genia is that he has too often been required to step into the role of 5/8 as well as halfback (due to defects in our flys) . He has risen to that challenge, but no player on earth can do it for long. In my view he is one of the best half-backs in the world and most other international teams would take him as their regular No 9 like a shot if he was available.
June 29th 2012 @ 8:28am
sixo_clock said | June 29th 2012 @ 8:28am | Report comment
Then we agree to disagree. Job done.
June 25th 2012 @ 10:52am
Jutsie said | June 25th 2012 @ 10:52am | Report comment
Werewolf, I just noted ur last point about the provincial sides being on the same page as the wallabies tactics wise. really good point.
Too many of our s15 teams have also adopted conservative game plans, the reds v brumbies game was a debacle.
June 25th 2012 @ 10:59am
KiwiDave said | June 25th 2012 @ 10:59am | Report comment
That game was two teams playing not to lose rather than to win.
June 25th 2012 @ 11:18am
Bigbaz said | June 25th 2012 @ 11:18am | Report comment
KW saturday was about as bad as it gets, not sure who to blame,both sides ? the ref ? dingoe ? or me who foolishly thought that a day game on a dry track would produce at the very least some rugby where the ball got to the wingers via the hand.At least against Scotland we could blame the weather.
June 25th 2012 @ 11:42am
KiwiDave said | June 25th 2012 @ 11:42am | Report comment
I wouldn’t blame the coach. When Deans was interviewed at halftime you could see he was really pissed at the sloppy ball retention and poor handling. He mentioned this was his main area of concern. Over the full 80, Aussie definitely had the better of the contest, but their execution was poor and they blew a few golden opportunities with poor passing.
June 25th 2012 @ 5:43pm
The Werewolf said | June 25th 2012 @ 5:43pm | Report comment
Yes that reds v brumbies game was a horrible spectacle and it actually gained a lot of discussion on the UK rugby clubs show. They are a little peeved off that the English premiership gets such a bad slanging off from the likes of Kearnsy, when games like that are happening down under. As they put it, they were planning on bringing it up with Kearns and co this June.
To be fair the Brumbies were playing well before the last couple of rounds and the Reds have come good particularly at Suncorp. The rebels and the force have their moments so whether the win or lose as long as they are playing the right style we shouldn’t mind for the bigger picture. But the waratahs on paper should be leading the conference and it is their slow style of pick and go that is the problem. Pick and go needs to be quick as does the service from the no 9. They should play centre-a-side and use Foley as the second receiver much more.
June 25th 2012 @ 11:18am
redsnut said | June 25th 2012 @ 11:18am | Report comment
One thing that I noticed in particular during the last match was that not one of the back five wanted to pass the ball, or run towards any form of support.
June 25th 2012 @ 11:26am
Red Kev said | June 25th 2012 @ 11:26am | Report comment
Yeah contrast Rob Horne’s almost botched try with Conrad Smith in space and possibly/probably going to find the line immediately passing on to Ben Smith outside him who had more pace and more space to work in. My problem with McCabe and Horne as centres is their lack of passing – and that is the badly needed skill that Ben Tapuai brings to the centres for the Wallabies – he is just as strong a defender, but a much better attacker. Genia-Cooper-Barnes-Tapuai would be the midfield I would be aiming for if I were Deans (providing Cooper learns how to tackle).
June 25th 2012 @ 12:55pm
Markus said | June 25th 2012 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
I don’t think the playmaker at 12 is the must-have so many claim it is, so long as it is made up for elsewhere.
While Beale was poor overall on Saturday, his inclusion did provide the secondary playmaking to support Barnes. If O’Connor is to return on one wing, that is three players in the backline who can step in at first receiver.
That said, Tapuai is definitely the form 13 and my first pick there once back from injury. I’d actually have Tapuai, AAC then Faingaa at 13 before Horne.
I’d only be bringing Cooper back as a bench player for now, because of both his defence and the recent poor success rate of some of his high-risk plays.
June 25th 2012 @ 1:06pm
Jutsie said | June 25th 2012 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
You could tell they were trying more moves in the backline on saturday but it was rusty as hell. It should be noted that despite beale having a shocker it was his combination with barnes as dual playmakers that led to both the try and barnes’ linebreak that led to the try.
June 25th 2012 @ 2:30pm
Justin2 said | June 25th 2012 @ 2:30pm | Report comment
The only one doing anything was Beale.
He did a little run around play with Sharpe from a ruck and it put Barnes into a gaping hole. So if Beale, who is just back from injury, can do that with a lock then how come we havent seen anything at all from the full time backs?
It gives me the absolute sh^^^ts!
June 25th 2012 @ 1:24pm
Red Kev said | June 25th 2012 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
I don’t think the playmaker is a must, I just think Australia play better that way.
A second set of eyes reading the game and helping direction, or a third if you count Genia. More importantly I think both Cooper and Barnes play better when some of the load is lifted from them (by each other).
The other point is simply that Australia does not have a SBW type of centre. McCabe for all his heart is not a player who concerns any opposition. If he scores it is a product of hard sucking work by the forwards and a pinpoint pass from someone else to put him through a hole, or a simple open space overlap. Horne to me looks like Conrad Smith without the brain. He can tackle but he has no nous. Fainga’a is serviceable but not international standard. Two-Dads is still the Mr Fix it of Australian rugby and while never terrible has not been brilliant in a long time.
Considering that, when Lealiifano and Cooper and O’Connor and Beale and Barnes are all fit, how do you structure your team?
That’s why I’d play a second five-eigth rather than a centre-style no.12.
June 25th 2012 @ 1:57pm
Jutsie said | June 25th 2012 @ 1:57pm | Report comment
Horne is worth persisting with nous can be learnt through experience and coaching.
June 25th 2012 @ 2:20pm
Red Kev said | June 25th 2012 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
No. You can teach a guy to react a certain way when he see’s a definite situation but you can’t teach him to read the game and exploit or create a gap. Horne looks good when someone better is inside him – recall last years’ Barbarians game where Tapuai put him into hole after hole. Of himself, Horne is a placeholder.
June 25th 2012 @ 2:31pm
Justin2 said | June 25th 2012 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
He isnt a natural like Taps, one is a Union player the other a league player in a Union jersey…
June 25th 2012 @ 7:38pm
The Werewolf said | June 25th 2012 @ 7:38pm | Report comment
For Mike’s comment,
Beale is the second 5/8 in attack and he played that way in attack on Saturday. There is no question of that.
McCabe has made a huge defensive impact in the past 12 months. It is a subtle difference but having a guy who can knock over ball carriers compared to Gits or QC , Barnes wearing the 12 who can tackle yes but not with any dominance makes a big difference over 80min.
June 25th 2012 @ 7:03pm
The Werewolf said | June 25th 2012 @ 7:03pm | Report comment
Let’s not be confused by the no 15 that Beale wears for the wallabies. He is the second receiver many are calling for. To play a second 5/8 instead of McCabe, with Beale in the side, is not necessary and defensively questionable.
June 25th 2012 @ 7:19pm
Mike said | June 25th 2012 @ 7:19pm | Report comment
I don’t know that I agree with that. Beale’s strengths at fullback are in his attacking runs and out of hand kicking. That is particularly where the Boks feared him last year (the Bokke blogs were quite fulsome in their praise for him).
I feel that the second receiver role is actually one of KB’s weaker areas, whether he starts at 10 or 15.
And particularly if we are going to have someone like McCabe or Horne at 13 then we need the second playmaker.
And defensively questionable? We played Berrick Barnes for several years at No 12 and then when QC came along we played Giteau at No 12. Those were not always good years for us, but it wasn’t the small man defending at No 12 that caused us problems. Both Barnes and Giteau then were lighter than JOC is now.
June 25th 2012 @ 7:44pm
Mike said | June 25th 2012 @ 7:44pm | Report comment
Werewolf,
Your posts seem to be out of sequence!
I note what you say and we’ll just have to disagree on whether JOC can hold down 12 as well as (or better) than McCabe for 80 minutes, in both attack and defence. I’ll sit out and see if anyone else has thoughts on this.
For the record, my preferred backline at present is Barnes at 10 (if he can keep showing the same level of improvement), JOC at 12, Beale at 15. I am not even sure I would find room for McCabe, perhaps on the bench, because AAC would be pushing for 13. But QC would also be pushing for a bench spot. Ioane and another specialist winger at 11 and 14. But then I think AAC is a great choice for a true impact player off the bench, because he is comfortable in any position from 11 to 15, so that opens up possibilities too. I appreciate we have different perspectives on this.
And also for the record, I don’t think McCabe or Horne are bad players. They have done their country proud and copped a lot of unjustified criticism. But there are only so many places.
June 25th 2012 @ 7:51pm
The Werewolf said | June 25th 2012 @ 7:51pm | Report comment
Sorry I posted my response above my first.
Agree to disagree on dropping Mccabe, who we missed enormously when he went off injured, and agree to disagree on playing 3 play makers yes.
June 25th 2012 @ 12:44pm
kingplaymaker said | June 25th 2012 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
A very fine and well-considered article.
I would say that this series was essentially the Wallabies without backs playing Wales. Three out of the four Wallabies stars were injured and so they had to win the race on one leg as it were. Considering this it was an excellent performance. Had it been so close WITH Cooper, Beale and JOC then it would have just been an average performance, if that. Some problems with remain even with the return of the starts. The centres and depth!!!!
June 25th 2012 @ 1:44pm
Mike said | June 25th 2012 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
“Another tactic that worked well was the scrum half and fly half often joining the fullback as our back three in defence. This is a consolidation of Deans’ tactics from last year but it is now working much better.”
Good point.