Deans’ Wallabies beat the Pumas, and critics
By Spiro Zavos, 8 Oct 2012 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Pumas, Rugby Union, The Rugby Championship, wallabies
320 Have your say
Wallabies' prop Ben Alexander (R) celebrates after defeating Argentina's Los Pumas by 25-19 in their Rugby Championship match at Gigante de Arroyito stadium in Rosario. (AFP Photo / Juan Mabromata)
Related coverage
To all those Wallaby supporters who listened and believed in the juvenile rants of Quade Cooper about the ‘toxic environment’ of the Wallabies and the carping criticism of coach Robbie Deans from journalists, the lesson for contemplation after the gutsy win over the Pumas is the Biblical injunction: ‘Oh ye of little faith’.
The fact is, the victory over the Pumas at Rosario is one of the great Wallaby triumphs.
Everything was against the Wallabies. Their form was not good. Many players were out injured. Some starting players were clearly carrying injuries.
The team was playing on a narrow soccer pitch in front of one of rugby’s most partisan crowds. And the Wallabies had endured a tiring journey from South Africa.
Finally, in Argentina this season the Pumas have defeated France and drawn with the Springboks.
The Wallabies, also, were going into this cauldron with a substantial part of the Australian rugby community disillusioned with the Wallaby coach Robbie Deans and some (make that most) of the players. This lack of faith can weaken the confidence of even strong sides.
In the Weekend Australian before the crucial Pumas Test, the veteran rugby writer Wayne Smith wrote a piece with the title ‘Tinkering Deans failing to let right combinations get the job done’ in which he accused the Wallaby coach of being a ‘fiddler’ who is continually looking for the ‘Eureka! moment.’
This fiddling, Smith argued, has ‘contributed to the instability’ of the side and presumably to its relative lack of success. The article presumed a Wallaby loss and, as a consequence, the end of Deans as the team’s coach.
The hinge for Smith’s curious line of reasoning was that Deans had selected the Western Force’s Nick Cummins ahead of two Queenslanders, Dom Shipperley and Luke Morahan.
“If the injury crisis,” Smith wrote, “truly was as bad as it has been portrayed, so bad it has forced the selection of one of the most inexperienced Australian backlines in decades, surely the sensible option would have been to eliminate at least one un-necessary change by sticking with Shipperley?”
Wait, though, there’s more. Morahan, according to Smith, should have been selected ahead of Mike Harris despite the fact Harris has played Test rugby this season.
Why? Because Harris played fullback this season “once for the Reds before Ewen McKenzie quickly realised he had made a bad mistake.”
There’s even more. Not content with disregarding the selection wisdom of McKenzie, Deans decided to go into the Test against the Pumas with “a monster pack” and then appeared to be content to finish off the match with a “bunch of relative lightweights in the forwards, with Liam Gill, Dave Dennis and a fit Scott Higginbotham, all named on the bench.”
Smith’s reading of this strategy was summed up in the conclusion to his article: “It may be that there is a clue to be found here how he intends to play the game. Then again, he might just be fiddling.”
Oh dear. The game actually worked out in a way that fitted in perfectly with the selection of a big starting pack and then smaller forwards coming on to make the tackles and get turnovers at the end of the match.
The Wallabies’ game plan was very clear (even to someone like Wayne Smith, I reckon) from the opening kick-off. The big Wallaby pack took the game to the Pumas. They drove from the lineouts. They made smashing tackles. Sitaleki Timani and Tatafu Polotau-Nau, especially, made charges from two and three out (not one out) and bent the Pumas line of defence.
And then in the last quarter of the Test, when the play became more open and fluid with the Pumas chasing points, the smaller players from the bench, along with Michael Hooper who was awesome in attack and defence for 80 minutes, made open field tackles and attacked the ball at rucks and mauls. Within a minute of being on the field, for instance, Gill made two turnovers.
All this was a perfect vindication of the Deans game plan and, just as importantly, in the splendid, full-hearted way the Wallabies carried it out.
And Harris’ effort? The man Smith wanted out of the side kicked a clutch of penalty goals which gave the Wallabies a leading cushion of points from his first successful effort.
Andrew Slack on Channel Nine and Rod Kafer and Tim Horan on Fox Sports all made the point that the Wallaby game plan was a coherent and well-planned effort, which worked.
As for the fiddling accusation, here are several pieces of information that more than answer Smith’s accusations.
In 11 Tests this season, the Wallabies have fielded 38 players. There are something like 24 potential Wallabies on the injury list.
In my Sydney Morning Herald column on Saturday, I selected a Wallaby XV of players not available to Deans for selection at Rosario: Adam Ashley-Cooper, Drew Mitchell, Rob Horne, James O’Connor, Lachie Turner, Berrick Barnes, Will Genia, Wycliff Palu, Ben McCalman, Dan Vickerman, James Horwill, David Pocock, Salesi Ma’afu, Stephen Moore, Sekope Kefu.
This team does not include Quade Cooper. I argued, moreover, that the crocks team would defeat the side that played the Pumas rather easily.
The point about the Deans fiddling that Smith finds so incompetent is that much of it, most of it, was forced on the Wallaby coach by injuries and by players like Shipperley not really taking their chances when they replaced injured starters.
And there has been more logic to Deans’ fiddling than that of Ewen McKenzie when the Reds suffered heavy casualties early on in their 2012 Super Rugby campaign.
McKenzie, in fact, made one of the most stupid bits of tinkering imaginable when he started Will Genia, arguably the best halfback in the world and certainly in Australia, at number 10 for the Reds.
Was it tinkering to move Kurtley Beale back to number 10 from his fullback position?
I would say it was shrewd selection on Deans’ part. The Wallabies have lacked energy at number 10 this season with Berrick Barnes and Quade Cooper, both of whom stand too deep under pressure.
Beale has energised the backs and it was his double-pump before popping a pass to Digby Ioane who strolled through a massive gap, caused by four Wallaby backs in motion, which set up the try that won the Test.
This try was scored in the 65th minute of play. It virtually assured the Wallabies of a victory. Almost as important, it returned the killer move to the Wallabies backs, a feature that has been absent for some time.
The point about killer moves in the backs is that they invariably have to be played close to the advantage line. The play-makers coming to the Wallabies from the Super Rugby franchises this season have had the bad habit of standing too deep for either them or their runners to attack the gain line.
But Beale has done so well in the last two Tests at number 10 that he has probably got a mortgage on the position for the November tour.
At the beginning of the Super Rugby tournament, Richard Loe made the fearless prediction that the Wallabies would win only one match in The Rugby Championship. Presumably, he meant the home Test against the Pumas. Well the Wallabies have won three Tests. Only the All Blacks have won more.
In fact, the All Blacks have won all six of their matches scoring 177 points and conceding only 66.
The next most successful side in terms of wins is… the Wallabies! They won three Tests, including a home win against the Springboks and both Tests against the Pumas, scoring 101 points and conceding 137.
With The Rugby Championship decided by wins, the Wallabies finished second.
The Springboks came third in the tournament with 12 points, along with the Wallabies, which came from two wins (Pumas and Wallabies at home), a draw against the Pumas in Argentina and scoring two bonus points. They scored 120 PF and 109 PA.
The Pumas were last in the championship, drawing one match against the Springboks at home and scoring 80 points with 166 against.
These statistics indicate just what a tough tournament The Rugby Championship is and how far ahead of every other team the All Blacks are.
The Wallabies aren’t the only team that can’t beat the All Blacks right now. They are still, despite all the injuries, the number two team in world. They have beaten the Six Nations champions, Wales, three times this season. They have won both Tests against the Pumas. And they defeated the Springboks in Australia.
This is a strong record that should be celebrated rather than being the butt of continual criticism.
“Argentina is not the kind of place,” Brett Harris noted in The Australian on Saturday, “you want to go to when you are vulnerable, but that is precisely what the Wallabies are.”
I suggested in the SMH that given the injury toll, the fact that the Test was being played at Rosario, the heartland of Argentinian rugby (and the birthplace of rugby tragic Che Guevara), with a crowd that is the 16th player on the field for the Pumas, a win for the Wallabies in this sort of challenging environment would rank among their finest triumphs.
Well they won. And they won well. They withstood the frenzy of the Pumas and their crowd (even the lasers being shone in the eyes of goal-kickers) and with a make-shift side and a strong, well-constructed game plan they beat the Pumas and their critics who have been giving them a tough time this year.
Some eating of humble pie by the critics is in order, I reckon.
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:
- Pumas, Rugby Union, The Rugby Championship, wallabies



October 8th 2012 @ 6:50am
moaman said | October 8th 2012 @ 6:50am | Report comment
Spiro—”With The Rugby Championship decided by wins, the Wallabies finished second. ” Is that in the event of a tie? If not then why bother having bonus points/points table atall?
Your piece made no real mention of the other team that played at Rosario. In fact,the whole piece read like a defence of earlier defences! I believe that last game was a bridge too far for Los Pumas.They fielded essentially the same small group throughout the Championship and an identical starting XV at Rosario that had faced the All Blacks a week before.
The fizz and punch they had met NZ with last week just wasn’t on display this time around. The Pumas were a spent force.
October 8th 2012 @ 6:58am
Nick said | October 8th 2012 @ 6:58am | Report comment
Yep. The pumas ran out of gas. It’s crazy that the media were able to spin this to make the wallabies the underdogs! Top 3 ranked side (at the time) vs a side outside the top tier rankings in it’s first season dealing with the travel and fatigue if SH competition? Give me a break, the game was always australias to lose.
Credit where it’s due thought, they won when they needed to and Deans should be safe.
October 8th 2012 @ 7:08am
Andrew Logan said | October 8th 2012 @ 7:08am | Report comment
Its not only the media who thought they were underdogs. The bookies had the two teams level pegging at $1.90 before the game.
October 8th 2012 @ 8:27am
Nick said | October 8th 2012 @ 8:27am | Report comment
Bookies odds are set by punters betting, punters are influenced by the prevailing conversation largely driven by media
October 8th 2012 @ 3:27pm
Bazza said | October 8th 2012 @ 3:27pm | Report comment
Nick, if you were a big punter you would know that it is the other way round.
October 8th 2012 @ 8:28am
Darwin Stubbie said | October 8th 2012 @ 8:28am | Report comment
If the bookies had them at evens – how does that transform into one team being underdogs ?
October 8th 2012 @ 9:21am
Mals said | October 8th 2012 @ 9:21am | Report comment
The disgusting use of laser pointers made the Wallabies the under dogs.
October 8th 2012 @ 8:29am
nickoldschool said | October 8th 2012 @ 8:29am | Report comment
tab had the pumas favorites at $1.70 and Wallabies at $2.10 on Friday arvo. Not a good Sunday morning for them!
October 8th 2012 @ 7:28am
Jeff said | October 8th 2012 @ 7:28am | Report comment
Of course it is in the event of a tie.If The Saffers had earned one more bonus point they would have had 13 points and would have finished second.
As it is both teams finished with 12 points and the rules say in the event of a tie the team with the most wins is the winner.
I do believe if you aren’t aware of basic matters like this why do you feel you are qualified to comment on whether it was a bridge too far for the Pumas.
They were playing at home and they didn’t have to travel halfway around the world after last weeks match.
Just perhaps they weren’t allowed tp play well.
October 8th 2012 @ 8:48am
Harry said | October 8th 2012 @ 8:48am | Report comment
IF the Pumas couldn’t get up for this match – a rolled gold opportunity – then you have to question their commitment and character, and condemn these so called professionals as money grubbing losers.
I don’t of course. In fact I thought they did really well. The plain fact is they just aren’t at the level of skill and consistency that the other 3 teams are at the moment.
They will learn from this campaign and be better in the coming years.
October 8th 2012 @ 9:43pm
soapit said | October 8th 2012 @ 9:43pm | Report comment
i’d question only their professionalism. 4 quick games against the best 3 in the world is always going to be a tough season in your first year the other teams are more used to whats required..
their professionalism will improve with the experience though.
October 8th 2012 @ 2:24pm
moaman said | October 8th 2012 @ 2:24pm | Report comment
Thanks for that Jeff.
October 8th 2012 @ 7:03am
foriz said | October 8th 2012 @ 7:03am | Report comment
True. A great effort. A blessing in disguise too that they are forced to use a 2nd XV. This squad will be knackered by the end of the spring tour and as this new super rugby/june tests/rugby champ/springtour cycle continues year in year out rotation will become essential. If the ABs are resting McCaw for 6 months, Aust with a much smaller talent pool needs to look at preservation
October 8th 2012 @ 9:49am
Mike said | October 8th 2012 @ 9:49am | Report comment
True. It seems that NZRU forces their S15 sides to rest AB players. ARU should do the same, and also take a look at the issue of fitness and injuries all the way down to club level.
October 8th 2012 @ 7:08am
Galgano said | October 8th 2012 @ 7:08am | Report comment
Thank god we have third stringers with more faith in themselves their teammates and their coaching/management staff than the Australian public. They achieved what they achieved for themselves, and the majority of so called wallaby supporters who bag them continuously can make their own arrangements for self fulfillment.
These guys took a belting at altitude last week, without ever throwing in the towel despite the scoreboard, flew across to Argentina with no support from home and against all these odds tried to play expansive rugby (which you have all been baying for) and won. They owe us nothing.
October 8th 2012 @ 9:14am
In-house counsel said | October 8th 2012 @ 9:14am | Report comment
Excellent post Galgano. It is about time the wallaby supporters (not) are castigated for their ‘toxic’ and relentless attack on our boys. If they win, they lose anyway.
October 8th 2012 @ 10:13am
Justin2 said | October 8th 2012 @ 10:13am | Report comment
You are wide of the mark – I believe most supporters do not have a go at the players. The coaches and admin is a different story. I dont think anyone with half a brain believes the players dont give their all every time they hit the pitch.
October 8th 2012 @ 10:27am
Mike said | October 8th 2012 @ 10:27am | Report comment
Many of your comments give the opposite impression.
October 8th 2012 @ 11:04am
Justin2 said | October 8th 2012 @ 11:04am | Report comment
Not my fault if your comprehension isnt up to scratch
I am more than happy to say if I believe a player isnt up to standard but I dont say they dont try or arent competing as they should in their national colours.
Big difference.
October 8th 2012 @ 11:13am
Mike said | October 8th 2012 @ 11:13am | Report comment
don’t get me wrong – I am sure you don’t intend your comments to come across the way they do.
October 9th 2012 @ 3:54pm
krill said | October 9th 2012 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
Right on Galgano and Mike. Maybe the toxic environment Quade talks of comes from “wallaby supporters” on the roar.
October 8th 2012 @ 7:14am
Nick said | October 8th 2012 @ 7:14am | Report comment
Mate – the wallabies played well – so they should they are wallabies. The Pumas ran out of gas and we kicked our goals – so we should.
Still time for a change mate
October 8th 2012 @ 7:22am
B-Rock said | October 8th 2012 @ 7:22am | Report comment
Nick – a bit harsh I think. Its bloody tough to win in Argentina at the best of times.
by change I assume u mean deans?
I don’t think Link would do any better with the personnel available. Surely there aren’t any other candidates?
October 8th 2012 @ 7:18am
B-Rock said | October 8th 2012 @ 7:18am | Report comment
Good article Spiro,
the wallabies had absolutely no business winning that test – not a spectacle with far too many errors on both sides but any wallabies supporter which is critical following that game is looking for reasons to be negative and is pushing an agenda.
All 3 wins in the RC have come from ticker.
Players, most recently Sharpie on the Roar, say they aren’t using injuries as an excuse but the reality is they are critical to a teams performance. To eek out 3 gritty wins in such a tough tournament with these players is remarkable. Surely some credit for this needs to go to Deans?
As fans we nees to be able to appreciate different aspects of rugby. The quality of attacking play was poor but the defense was brutal, scrum better than expected, lineout solid, and the forwards aimed up. Not every game can be about glittering attacking play, particularly under the current circumstances.
October 8th 2012 @ 7:30am
Nick said | October 8th 2012 @ 7:30am | Report comment
No business winning that test? Come on. Of course they should be winning it. Won the TN and super titles and made RWC semi finals just last year. Pumas have never won anything.
This talk of wallabies injuries is really over the top. That game was always going to be won in the forwards, having AAC, Cooper, JOC or Mitchel wasn’t going to make too much difference. The loss of Pocock and Horwill was tough but Hooper really stepped up. The game played in the fowards negated the loss of Genia to some extent.
Australia doesn’t have many world class players so your second stringers aren’t really that lower in the pecking order to be honest. Horses for courses, if you’d played a team like the boks or the all blacks who can run you’d probably have gone down due to the loss of backline players but the pumas have no backline so you had a chance and you took it.
Really weren’t the underdogs thought, that’s too far
October 8th 2012 @ 9:06am
B-Rock said | October 8th 2012 @ 9:06am | Report comment
You are a hard taskmaster Nick. Its always easy to find negatives but you have to take a balanced look at this.
No one I spoke to or read gave the Wallabies much hope in Rosario. Form, travel, playing away, injuries, etc all meant the Argies should have been favourites for this one. The Wallabies are a better team than Argentina all else equal – on a neutral ground at full strength. All else is not equal though.
The wallabies have made a habit of winning the close ones (3N last yr, Boks in the RWC, Wales, Boks again at home the RC, Argies twice) – a mark of a good team with strong (hardly toxic) character. Not since the Gregan/Larkham era have we been the side that won the games we shouldnt. Lets hope this character rubs off on the “stars” when they return.
A couple of rebutals if I may:
– Spiros injured pack above highlights 5 forwards we could really use at the moment – Wycliff Palu, Dan Vickerman, James Horwill, David Pocock, Stephen Moore, Sekope Kepu (there are plenty more Im sure). Would they have made a difference?
– The Wallabies have always relied on the backs carving up teams while trying to reach parity up front. Missing our explosive back line is still a huge disadvantage against a forward oriented team.
– How does not having any world class players (we do have a few IMO) make your backups any better? I dont understand this logic at all. Better first choice players lifts the whole team if anything
– Genia is critical to forward play, able to clear the breakdown, keep the defense honest around the rucks by his running game and controlling the flow of the game.
October 8th 2012 @ 9:48am
Ben.S said | October 8th 2012 @ 9:48am | Report comment
Vickerman? Pull the other one…
TPN is injured, and whilst he’s injured all we hear about is what a loss he is, and now he’s a regular starter the talk is of Moore.
October 8th 2012 @ 10:23am
B-Rock said | October 8th 2012 @ 10:23am | Report comment
If Sharpe has played all season and been highly valuable, a fit Vicks would be even more important. They are a similar vintage. Long record of locks playing into their mid-late 30′s at a high level.
RE hookers – you need more than 1 top level rake. The drop off after TPN and Squeaky is massive… Saia? seriously?… You need both of them for different reasons. Squeaky to start with his high work rate, TPN for the final 20 as an impact player.
October 8th 2012 @ 10:29am
Ben.S said | October 8th 2012 @ 10:29am | Report comment
When was the last time Vickerman hinted at being a Test lock?
But Moore wasn’t starting. TPN was.
October 8th 2012 @ 10:33am
Mike said | October 8th 2012 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Vickerman was the best test lock in Australia in his time and still would be if not injured. But as I understand it his playing career is over, so I am not sure why he is in the list above.
October 8th 2012 @ 10:38am
Ben.S said | October 8th 2012 @ 10:38am | Report comment
Oh good grief… This is where I take you off the ‘respond to’ list. When was Vickerman’s time? A long, long time ago. Further, he still would be? Are you for real? Honestly…
October 8th 2012 @ 10:54am
Mike said | October 8th 2012 @ 10:54am | Report comment
Vickerman was the best test lock in Australia up until his last game in 2011.
He recently announced his retirement from all forms of rugby – cannot even jog without pain, apparently.
October 8th 2012 @ 11:13am
B-Rock said | October 8th 2012 @ 11:13am | Report comment
Ben S – Its a shame Vickermans career is over, with a raft of serious injuries. Given he isnt coming back, it is a bit questionable putting him on the list i agree. But his time was not that long ago. We all quickly forget how important he was to the Wallabies. He was always considered superior to Sharpe but unfortunately his body let him down
RE Moore/TPN – Moore at 2 and TPN at 16 is the most effective use of them IMO. We really need to develop some depth at this position
October 8th 2012 @ 12:33pm
JIM said | October 8th 2012 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
I think that you need to think of your hookers as part of the whole tight 5 and you need balance across the group. Yes Saia doesnt bend the line, but he does more defensively than either Moore or TPN.
I think that having Slipper starting made a big difference against the Pumas becasue of the amount of defence he does. he makes big first up tackles and is often second man in on the close to the ruck stuff. We have missed that physicality in the first up contact close to the ruck.
For mine, at least one of your front rowers need to have the big defensive workrate that has made the reds successful. Yes you need ball carriers as well, but you cant have all of the forwards trying to carry the ball, or you end up getting spanked by the Springboks. It is what Slipper, Daley and Saia have done so well for the Reds. They may not be the best scrummagers in the comp, but they dont allow yards next to the ruck, which slows down the attack, moves it wider and reduces the fast turnover.
October 8th 2012 @ 12:38pm
Red Kev said | October 8th 2012 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
I don’t like Saia or Tatafu, both are head first tacklers who are a liability.
Hanson at the Reds is in my opinion a far better hooker than both not as effective at the breakdown but a very good ball carrier and he tackles like a normal human being not a kamikaze.
Slipper is great in the loose but he needs work on his scrummaging, at the moment he’s half a prop just like Benn Robinson who is anonymous in the loose but solid at scrum time. Why Holmes isn’t there I don’t know – he’s the happy medium between the two and combined with Palmer who is technically gifted as a scrummager would form a very good front row.
October 8th 2012 @ 1:14pm
B-Rock said | October 8th 2012 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
Good points Jim and Red Kev – I agree Saia is a good defender in terms of work rate and that TPN is a liability in terms of tackling technique. Certainly, the composition of the front row is important, i.e. the need for TPN is less if you have another strong running front rower like Kepu.
I think what this highlights is that 2 is a very challenging position – a key cog in the set piece as well as a high work rate required in both attack and defense. Has to be one of the toughest positions on the park.
No one gets ticks in every box, but I still think Moore/TPN is the best combo available.
October 8th 2012 @ 1:33pm
Jutsie said | October 8th 2012 @ 1:33pm | Report comment
Hanson is the best of the rest, (I dont know what the reds/wallabies see in s. finger to be honest) but TPN and moore are streets ahead of all other hookers in aus regardless of tackling style.
Whatever happened to ben whitaker? I was a bigger fan of him than nathan charles, I honestly dont get the nathan charles love, his ok but nothing spectacular.
October 8th 2012 @ 9:52am
Mike said | October 8th 2012 @ 9:52am | Report comment
“Pumas have never won anything.”
Errr, not exactly. They haven’t won any games in this RC, that’s true. They tend to win more than half their games against France, and do reasonably well against England, both good sides. The Argies aren’t slouches.
October 8th 2012 @ 10:14am
Ben.S said | October 8th 2012 @ 10:14am | Report comment
England has the best win percentage against Argentina of all European sides.
October 8th 2012 @ 10:15am
Mike said | October 8th 2012 @ 10:15am | Report comment
They’ve won two out of their last five matches against you, one home and one away. I think that could be described as doing “reasonably well” against one of the great rugby nations.
October 8th 2012 @ 10:18am
Ben.S said | October 8th 2012 @ 10:18am | Report comment
I don’t think anybody would describe any of those 5 England sides as ‘great’. Australia’s winning percentage against Argentina is only 2% higher than England’s.
October 8th 2012 @ 10:24am
Mike said | October 8th 2012 @ 10:24am | Report comment
Who said they were “great”?
And thanks for agreeing with me in your last sentence!
October 8th 2012 @ 10:30am
Ben.S said | October 8th 2012 @ 10:30am | Report comment
A great rugby nation? Only mildly pointless and disingenuous.
I have no idea what you think you’re getting at. No idea.
October 8th 2012 @ 2:35pm
Bono said | October 8th 2012 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
Listing Vickerman on the injury list clearly shows Spiro’s bias towards Deans when he has retired from rugby and is no longer available. Like someone else mentioned earlier, the game against Argentina was always going to be won in the forwards and the only injured forwards that I would bring back to the starting team would be Horwill and perhaps Moore. Palu has never really impressed against the AB’s and with his chronic injuries he’s probably not the player he once was. Pocock would not get in ahead of Hooper based on ability and form atm. Alexander’s all round game is also good enough to keep Kepu out atm and he’s certainly a lot fitter than Kepu. Ben McCalman and Maafu – are you serious Spiro??
Another thing Spiro, how are you going to justify the trashing that the Walabies suffered at Eden Park and also the heavy loss in Sydney which was not really reflected in the scoreline ? At this stage the wallabies we pretty much at full strength with the only players missing being Horwill, JOC and possibly Cooper….
October 8th 2012 @ 2:54pm
Jeznez said | October 8th 2012 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
Vickerman was on a full contract with the Waratahs and Wallabies for this season, unfortunately injury has seen him retire from all rugby during this season. Perfectly reasonable to list him as an injured Wallaby until this season is finished. Both he and the ARU expected him to be in gold this year.
October 8th 2012 @ 4:14pm
Mike said | October 8th 2012 @ 4:14pm | Report comment
Yes, in fairness, I think Vickerman’s retirement from all rugby was only announced a few weeks ago.
October 8th 2012 @ 2:59pm
B-Rock said | October 8th 2012 @ 2:59pm | Report comment
Surely you are kidding RE Palu, Pocock and Kepu. They would stroll straight back into the team tomorrow.
October 8th 2012 @ 3:06pm
Bono said | October 8th 2012 @ 3:06pm | Report comment
Pocock? No way has he the all round game to match Hooper and that’s why most Nzers used to find it hilarious when Aussie were hyping him up as being the best in the world ahead of McCaw. Palu has not played a good game against the AB’s whereas Samo has. Kepu is a an unfit prop with half the workrate of Alexander and based on the last few weeks, the scrum has not suffered by not having him there.
Btw, there is a two page discussion on planet rugby atm about the relative strengths of Pocock and Hooper, and most of the Aussie posters there would rather have Hooper in their starting lineup.
October 8th 2012 @ 3:09pm
Jutsie said | October 8th 2012 @ 3:09pm | Report comment
I cant believe the amount of people that are bagging pocock, like bono has done above.
“Pocock would not get in ahead of Hooper based on ability and form atm”
Pocock’s form atm is sitting out a half a season due to a knee injury, before that he was the standout forward in the welsh series, so much so that the welsh were complaining about him whenever they had the chance and indulged in a bit of off-the-ball niggle in an attempt to put him off his game. Before the welsh series pocock single-handedly carried an average wallaby outfit over the line in a QF against sth africa.
Hooper has been a revelation and deserves all the plaudits but lets not go overboard, pocock is still (along with genia) the most important and influential player in the current generation of wallabies.
October 8th 2012 @ 7:26am
Darwin Stubbie said | October 8th 2012 @ 7:26am | Report comment
The only real question that comes out of these standard Monday morning paint jobs is – what has Smith done to deserve being continually hauled over the coals … Now I’m no great fan of his writing (a bit to Qld centric normally) – but SZ has being going hard at him in way that’s previously being reserved for Jones
October 8th 2012 @ 8:54am
Harry said | October 8th 2012 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Because Smith is the only credible Australian rugby journalist who isn’t in the Deans/JON/ARU tent. Spiro is an unabashed admirer of Deans and defends him throughout.
Spiro also likes to personally attack other journo’s – thats his perogative and this site is owned by his family afterall. Good luck to him and he makes some good points in the asrticle above. Agree, Deans got it right on Saturday (though hasn;t on many other occassions).
For what its worth, IMO Smith has been right more often than not (and Spiro) over the last couple of years.
October 8th 2012 @ 9:08am
WobbliesFan said | October 8th 2012 @ 9:08am | Report comment
“Spiro also likes to personally attack other journo’s – thats his perogative and this site is owned by his family afterall.”
Ahh, now it all makes sense.
October 8th 2012 @ 9:17am
Short-Blind said | October 8th 2012 @ 9:17am | Report comment
Totally agree Harry – SZ looks like a whinger cracking Smith…..who gets it right more often than him! Poor form just stick to the analysis Spiro & lay off the nah nah nah
October 8th 2012 @ 1:13pm
NickF said | October 8th 2012 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
You know, none of you have to read Spiro’s articles if you don’t want to. And it’s not like you have to pay for either.
I have been reading Spiro’s articles for many years and have found his articles to be more interesting and better analysed than most writers.
October 8th 2012 @ 2:31pm
moaman said | October 8th 2012 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
NickF—Your Dad’s name wouldn’t be Noel by any chance? Genuine question.
October 8th 2012 @ 6:18pm
Harry said | October 8th 2012 @ 6:18pm | Report comment
Agree, Spiro’s an excellent well-informed rugby writer. As is Wayne Smith. If Spiro wants to have a go at Smith’s articles, particularly on The Roar, thats his perogative.
October 8th 2012 @ 7:42am
mania said | October 8th 2012 @ 7:42am | Report comment
wb’s showed that determination and guts. said it last week in that wb’s were more dangerous than ever because they had nothing to lose. wb’s made this win look easy
October 8th 2012 @ 8:29am
Nick said | October 8th 2012 @ 8:29am | Report comment
Hahaha. 6 points and the argies pushing for the win in the final seconds. Made it look easy. New definition apparently
October 8th 2012 @ 9:06am
mania said | October 8th 2012 @ 9:06am | Report comment
puma’s never really looked like scoring and were constantly playing catch up rugby. while i was hoping for the puma’s to have a fairy tale ending i never really thought they pressured wb’s in those final minutes
October 8th 2012 @ 7:59am
Sam said | October 8th 2012 @ 7:59am | Report comment
Well done to Wallabies. Gutsy win in foreign cauldron. The question that needs to be prepared for is will this order of injuries be likely to repeat year in and year out with new extended calendar and how are we going to set ourselves for it. Blooding some new players on European tour will be an insurance policy. Dusty starting test for Tapuai but I hope his cards aren’t marked down for it. Persistence will pay off but I would prefer to see him in centre. Morahan was in great form recently. Hope he gets some game time in Europe. Ditto James Hanson, who adds both at scrum and line out throw time.
October 8th 2012 @ 8:39am
Who Needs Melon said | October 8th 2012 @ 8:39am | Report comment
Sam, this is an excellent question: “will this order of injuries be likely to repeat year in and year out with new extended calendar and how are we going to set ourselves for it?”
We all talk about the injury toll like its an anomoly. Maybe it isn’t – maybe it’s the start of the new norm given the number of games these guys now have to play each year. And then most of us have been calling for a 3rd tier. I hope were not going the way of cricket.
October 8th 2012 @ 9:55am
Mike said | October 8th 2012 @ 9:55am | Report comment
I agree Melon. I think this level of injuries is permanent, unless Australian rugby learns how to manage it, as SA and NZ are learning. It will take a concerted effort and not just at test level.
October 8th 2012 @ 10:20am
Ben.S said | October 8th 2012 @ 10:20am | Report comment
I don’t know. You could be right, but a few of the injuries were just unfortunate and game situations or just innocuous training day things. I don’t doubt the extended season will have an effect, but in 2009 England had around 25 injuries during the Autumn Tests. Sometimes it’s just your year.
October 8th 2012 @ 9:01am
Sam Taulelei said | October 8th 2012 @ 9:01am | Report comment
Very pertinent question Sam about the likelihood of injuries to recur each year.
The Lions tour next year will force an earlier start to the Super season for Australian players, creating an even shorter “off-season” for players compared to last year.
It may force the selector’s hands in picking a raw, development squad to tour the UK and leaving established players behind to fully recuperate from injuries and be fresh for 2013.
The Wallabies and ARU will need to consult and work together with the Super franchises to better manage their top Wallaby players workloads for next season to ensure they have their best players fit and in form for the Lions series. Something will have to change as a result of an unprecedented number of injuries suffered this season, while there is an element of bad luck with some injuries, questions need to be asked about the way the Super squads are training and being physically prepared.
October 8th 2012 @ 9:25am
Justin2 said | October 8th 2012 @ 9:25am | Report comment
And at national level Sam. It’s not just the states, after all the ARU has advertised for some sort of medical/physio position mid year. QC brought this up so at national level there are issues.
October 8th 2012 @ 9:55am
sittingbison said | October 8th 2012 @ 9:55am | Report comment
Sam, the end of year tours should always be an avenue to blood new players and give experience to beginners
October 8th 2012 @ 12:17pm
Harry said | October 8th 2012 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
So long as there are midweek games on these tours.
October 8th 2012 @ 3:18pm
bluerose said | October 8th 2012 @ 3:18pm | Report comment
what will happen to our ranking if we lose all 4games and say the Boks lose 1 and Eng lose 1? will we still be in the top4 by Dec?
October 8th 2012 @ 6:19pm
Harry said | October 8th 2012 @ 6:19pm | Report comment
New Zealand will lose a pool game at RWC 2015.
October 8th 2012 @ 8:08am
Ronnie Liddle said | October 8th 2012 @ 8:08am | Report comment
Some eating of humble pie by the critics is in order, I reckon. — True that.
October 8th 2012 @ 8:17am
biltongbek said | October 8th 2012 @ 8:17am | Report comment
I said the whole week that thecWallabies would win, it was to be expected that the Pumas by match six would be spent.
But that doesn’t take way from the faxt that their participation has brought a new lease of life the the premier SH competition.
October 8th 2012 @ 9:13am
B-Rock said | October 8th 2012 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Good prediction Biltongbek, you were one of very few (many will be claiming they picked it today Im sure)
A question – Why should the Argies be more “spent” than the other 3 teams? I would have thought the wallabies would be at a disadvantage on this front when you factor in the travel from AUS – SA – ARG in recent weeks. Wouldnt ARG have been more more settled for this one?
October 8th 2012 @ 9:20am
mania said | October 8th 2012 @ 9:20am | Report comment
B-Rock – i’ll confirm that Biltongbek was saying that all last week but i’d like to point out that i was screaming the same along side him.
the reason puma’s will be more exhausted is because of the fitness level that super rugby gives you. sometimes a team can pull off a one off win vs a team ranked higher against them. but this is totally different and puma’s had to play 6 test matches against teams that were all ranked higher and all with a similar fitness level that only super rugby can give you.
when triNations and super first started aus and boks struggled to keep up with NZ teams and imo this was solely due to different fitness levels. since then theres pararity in fitness maing AB’s job harder. until puma’s get to that fitness level they wont consistently win in the RC but they will pull off some upsets.
October 8th 2012 @ 9:29am
B-Rock said | October 8th 2012 @ 9:29am | Report comment
Thanks Mania – good prediction also
Fair point that SR improves fitness levels – hard thing to prove but makes sense. Thinking it through though, could this be a biased SH view of the world? To my (very limited) knowledge of the NH clubs, most of the Argies play in Europe (France/England). Surely fitness levels are comparable as these are highly professional clubs which would easily be competitive in SR?
Also, the battered and bruised Wallabies were hardly fresh heading into the test, when you add in the travel factor, I would have thought this advantage would be minimal
October 8th 2012 @ 9:37am
mania said | October 8th 2012 @ 9:37am | Report comment
bRock – u see it in the pacific cup and some of the worldcup games. u notice the super players because at the 60 min mark they’re still going hard out, where as the non super and NH players tend to wane at this stage.
u also see it when a player goes north and then returns and is no where near the force they were . elsom, matfield, lukeMcalistair to name a few.
super rugby is played at an incredible pace that we take for granted because we’re desensitised to it. but it is an incredible level of fitness.
in comparison to NH, do u watch a lot of their play? i’m not one to say that SH is better than NH, its just different. one thing though that comes from expansive rugby is fitness level.
fitness was a small advantage for the wb’s but was enough to get them home. also like Biltongbek said, puma’s would’ve been exhausted from their first RC tournament. remember that puma’s were playing teams ranked 1,2 and 3 and thats gotta take a toll
October 8th 2012 @ 3:09pm
biltongbek said | October 8th 2012 @ 3:09pm | Report comment
B-rock, to add to what mania has said, apart from the fatigue I said the Pumas can be strong up front, but out wide they don’t have what it takes to break down defences consistently in the SH.
October 8th 2012 @ 3:14pm
Jutsie said | October 8th 2012 @ 3:14pm | Report comment
BB I reckon they do have what it takes out wide but have yet to figure out how to use these guys in an effective and consistent manner. Two of the best trys in the series were scored due to the pace of the argie outside backs (the 2nd try against aus in gold coast, and the 1st try against NZ, last week).
I think a big part of their problem is hernadez at 10, he was much better as FB back in 2007, at 10 he is not effective as he stands almost as deep as morne and stifles any forward momentum the pack achieves.
October 8th 2012 @ 3:23pm
biltongbek said | October 8th 2012 @ 3:23pm | Report comment
No doubt they will Jutsie, abd as brave and passionate as they have been, their first season in the 4N was always going to be about learning.
October 8th 2012 @ 3:38pm
Jutsie said | October 8th 2012 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
Agreed BB, it was a steep learning curve, biggest factor for them was the pace of the SH game. They struggled to finish games off due to this.
However I think for the most part they exceeded expectations and were unlucky not to get a maiden win (biggest chance was the draw against SA and the WB’s game in gold coast)
October 8th 2012 @ 9:53pm
soapit said | October 8th 2012 @ 9:53pm | Report comment
regardless of the super rugby theory if you are constantly playing against teams that are significantly better than you and have more money invested in them you are going to get more taken out of you than the opposition.
October 9th 2012 @ 4:02pm
krill said | October 9th 2012 @ 4:02pm | Report comment
You also said the Boks would beat the All Blacks