The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

In search of a Wallabies identity

Israel Folau (AAP Image/Dave Hunt)
Roar Guru
26th June, 2016
3

Watching the three matches unfold I couldn’t help but feel that the Australian team was lacking in direction and identity. This is not directed at the players, but at the coaching style and intelligence behind it.

Let’s start with a brief run down of the Wallabies’ world cup gameplan. Over the course of the tournament the Australian plan was well known and communicated. There were a core of 80 minute players, like Matt Toomua, Rob Horne and Michael Hooper, that were defensively sound, while Matt Giteau and Will Genia provided the tactical direction. Then you had the clear finishers in Kurtley Beale, Nick Phipps, et cetera to up the tempo, provide impact and close out to the game.

This game plan worked and guided the Wallabies into the final.

In the last three Test matches this clarity has been absent. The bench was not selected for impact and intensity. The starting side was tactically weak without a second kicking option. Offensively, the backline was by the numbers and regularly caught behind the gain line.

It almost appeared that the Australian team were an experimental side brought together with a promise of delivery in 12 months’ time. Just put them on the field, blood the new players, get them used to Test match intensity and the rough edges will be polished as we go forward.

Indeed the selections of Adam Coleman, Rory Arnold, Samu Kerevi and Dane Haylett-Perry did find some welcome depth and potential. They also all conform to Michael Cheika’s “bigger is better” philosophy.

But the job of the coach is to bring a coherent game plan to the table. If Australia had choosen to follow the world cup game plan then the starting side would have contained the following:

– Frisby to start and provide tactical kicking support, Phipps on the bench for impact and up-tempo finishing.

Advertisement

– Skelton to the bench as a finisher – he attracts multiple defenders, can offload and always presents quick ball.

Looking deeper, to strengthen the finishers Christian Lealiifano and Wycliff Palu would be dropped as not bringing the required impact (Please note, I would definitely consider these two as starting players, but not bench players for the Cheika game plan).

Imagine the clear impact a bench comprising Adam Coleman, Will Skelton, Phipps and Kerevi running on with 20 minutes to play.

Instead after three games I am left wondering – what was Australia’s plan?
– We showed no intelligence of knowing (or even having) a plan B.
– Cheika’s trade-mark up tempo game faltered 15 minutes into game 2 and never recovered.
– Strategically, we could not control the game to rest our big forwards because our kicking out of hand was sub-standard.
– Particularly in the third game our back three were exposed with the ball finding the ground far too often from English kicks.
– Kicking from the tee was a clear issue.
– Exit strategy from our 22 was horrible, you do not run the ball from 5m out! Obviously it is time to shoot QC again.
– No offensive variation to combat the 14-man English defence.
– The use of offensive mid-field bombs with no chase, providing uncontested ball to the English. Either kick long to the corner, or bomb short for the chase.

There is much to be done.

close