- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
As we move another day closer to the third Test, there’s still time for one more article that dissects Game 2 from the sandpit in Melbourne and attempts to suggest something new that hasn’t already been discussed to death.
This might just be that article. And it’s my first, so go easy lads.
Australian leadership
Michael Hooper and Stephen Moore had time with the captain’s armband in Melbourne and while both gave their all for the green and gold, there was some concerning decision making by both of them.
Much has been written about the decisions not to take the kicks at goal. Other much more experienced writers have referred to this as the Super Rugby versus Test rugby styles and it is definitely an interesting point. English fans remember the pain of Chris Robshaw not taking the three points in the Rugby World Cup against Wales.
But the question I want to raise is over Moore’s leadership style in the game. He seems to have tried to execute the Wallabies team mantra – don’t take a backwards step – but in his desire to embody that phrase he seems to have lost what a rugby team needs most from its leader. That unrelenting commitment to be the calm, resolute man on the field who all can look to for the example.
Was he trying to ‘out Hartley’ Dylan Hartley when he charged into the group after Robshaw had almost popped Nick Phipp’s head off like a champagne cork? Yes, I agree the ref’s decision was a bit off when he overturned England’s two offences but Moore shouldn’t be doing that in the first place.
Australia don’t need Moore doing that. Australia need Moore leading the team and being the clever, calm, tactician. The stable hand on the ship’s wheel who loves the heat of the battle but also knows it is sweeter to take the three points than to drop a shoulder on Dan Cole.
Australian strategy
Given the fact that both Hooper and Moore elected to turn down gettable penalty kicks at goal I do wonder whether that was as a result of a pre-agreed team strategy. If that was the case then that raises two questions.
Why would you keep that strategy? And is the captain not allowed or encouraged to adjust the strategy on the field if they feel that a change is needed?
Beyond the decisions not to kick for goal, there was the broader Aussie strategy that never seemed to change. They played their usual fast-paced game and ran hard, I assume with the belief that it would result in tries just like it did in Game 1.
Fair enough.
But after 50 minutes of that not working the only change that seemed to take place was that the Aussies tried to run harder and faster in the belief that a tired England would eventually buckle and the points would come. Why didn’t Bernard Foley, Moore or Hooper take a moment and think – we need to try and adjust our plan here?
Yes, England were getting more and more tired from defending so much, but it felt like they had found a rhythm in that defensive effort where they knew exactly what was coming at them and knew the main thing they had to focus on was putting their body on the line time after time. Which they did.
If the Wallabies had changed, even for just ten minutes, the style of their attack, then maybe the English defenders would have had to take a moment each phase to think about what was coming at them next.
Was it a crash ball from a forward near the ruck, was it a chip over the top, was it a kick wide to the wing? Maybe that would have caused some hesitation in the English defence that would have given the Wallabies’ backline a little bit more time and space to work their magic.
English defensive effort
One of the key things about legendary stories are that they are often one-offs. Donald Bradman is a legend because he is a one-off. The story of heroes from Gallipoli is legendary because it was one moment in time. And England’s defensive effort in Melbourne has legendary potential.
But the key is that England cannot look to repeat that game after game. Not for that length of time. Sure, the great teams know they can rely upon their defence when needs be and their histories will undoubtedly have tales of that game where they held out the opposition for 60 minutes.
(My own Under-16 rugby school team still shares stories of how we held out the all-conquering Bedford Modern for 80 minutes and how the 0-0 draw felt like the sweetest victory to us. But the next week we got pounded and conceded many, many tries.)
England must show in the next few games that they have the attacking gameplan that matches that defensive courage and organisation. They will not win anything big (series against All Blacks or World Cup) if they have to rely upon courageous defence too often.
English strategy at the ruck
In the first Test the Aussie backs found space on the outside and sliced up the English regularly (partly explaining the four tries). But on Saturday the English seemed much more comfortable not competing at all at the breakdown and having all their men in the defensive line.
Time and again I noticed that at the ruck there would be the Aussie player who had been carrying the ball on the ground, maybe one other clearing out and then Phipps in there to get his hands on the ball. Meanwhile, there was maximum one white shirt (the original tackler) there.
This meant that more often than not the English gave themselves numbers and time in defence. This combined with how fast these defenders were off the line meant that there just wasn’t the space or time for the Aussie attackers.
Nick ‘The Crab’ Phipps
Phipps far too often was doing his impression of a crab and taking two steps across the pitch before releasing the ball. This is something that his opposite number, Ben Youngs, has been guilty of but seems to have corrected.
Not only did this mean that the ball was taking longer to get to the first receiver but when you add in my first point, you see that the main attacking players from the Aussie backline just didn’t have as much time and space to get behind the English line like they did in Brisbane.
There were a number of times when the English forwards would also get hands on Phipps, putting more pressure on the Aussies when they were desperately trying to make forward progress.
There were lots of other interesting points from the game but these are the ones that stood out to me. If Australia want to avoid the whitewash in a few days time then they really have to address some of these points.
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.