A respected rugby analyst was heard to say of George Gregan last week that “He is a great footballer, just not a great halfback” – a wonderfully pithy insight into the debate that rages around a player who is perhaps the greatest ever servant of Australian rugby.
Australian halfbacks are a durable breed, and amazingly, this position in the Test team has been overwhelmingly occupied by just 4 players in the last 47 years – Ken Catchpole, John Hipwell, Nick Farr Jones and George Gregan (with honourable mentions to Rod Hauser and Peter Slattery).
Of all of the above, Gregan is the only one to have attracted the constant sniping in the latter part of his career, whereas the others statures continued to grow. Catchpole’s stellar career was effectively ended by an act of thuggery when he was at the height of his powers (footage of which makes a mockery of Colin Meads’ impotent protestations of innocence). Hipwell played over a decade of Wallaby rugby and is still lauded for his fast flat pass, and Farr Jones was called out of retirement to face the All Blacks, such was his aura. Gregan, on the other hand, has often been seen as dispensable.
Why is this? It is no coincidence that calls for Gregan’s head began around the same time that Richard Harry, Phil Kearns, Michael Foley and Andrew Blades departed the Test scene. The Australian scrum was no longer a weapon, and all of a sudden, the physically dominant half with the pedestrian pass was struggling to distribute quality ball behind a backpedalling pack.
Paradoxically, it was Gregan who kept his beaten pack in many of these games, through his referee mind games, and a crafty delay of feed into shaky scrums. Where a more conventional halfback may have shut up and fed the scrum, George talked, protested, delayed, accused and generally marshalled a set of oft beaten troops into results far better than they deserved. For this alone he deserves better treatment than that meted out to him by the rugby populace.
But for all players and positions there is a skill which is bread and butter. For an open-side it is the breakdown; for a prop, the scrum; for a winger, finding the tryline; and for a halfback, the pass. Unfortunately for Gregan, his strongest and weakest points polarised further behind a beaten pack. His pass looked worse, but his ability to lead became crucial.
And so the quandary manifests. Are we better off playing a great leader with a slow pass, or a capable player with a fast one?
There are arguments both ways. Alan Jones once consoled would-be Wallaby half Brian Smith with this gem about Nick Farr-Jones, saying that Farr-Jones was “not there because he is a better player than you – but because the others play better when he is there”. The same could be said of Gregan – that the others play better when he is there.
However, the damning evidence is a little too clear. Last Saturday night, the Gregan pass put Australia under pressure. One pass actually bounced before it reached the man. A crucial Giteau clearing kick was delayed because a pass which should have arrived on Giteau’s left, arrived about 3 feet to his right. The bread and butter skill of the halfback was not in evidence.
Australia’s only hope of a win in France is to put the ball in the hands of its backs as quickly as possible. It must plan to do this knowing that it has a forward pack which will struggle for parity against every major rugby nation. Our only hope is a fast, flat pass off the ground, which unfortunately, is about the only weapon not in the formidable Gregan armoury.
Calling for George’s head is a little like campaigning against Mandela or Mother Teresa. He deserves better. But rugby is a team game, and the decision which is best for the team must be taken. Soon, the Wallabies will have to conjure up a new talisman to cajole them to victory anyway, since Gregan will be gone. It is time for the new leaders to emerge.
Whoever succeeds Gregan as halfback, it is unlikely that there will ever be a better footballer.
Paulmc
Guest
On GG As a person who has coached both Rugby & league @school level I have always maintained that a rugby half is the same as a league dummy half - a rugby fly half is equivalent to a league half & so on. Point - imagine GG playing hooker in a league team - brilliant in attack & front on defence - yeas Spiro a grat footballer
David
Guest
Yeah, Alex, I know what you mean. It was interesting, I think, the way the two halves of the 1st Welsh test were such a contrast (no pun intended). A bit all over the place for the first 40 with Gits at number nine, and then GG comes on and it's all clockwork. Same story reversed the next week, GG was out of sorts and things only started happening when Gits went to halfback. I don't know what that all means. The Lions reference was my way of suggesting that a faster passing halfback isn't going to make or break us if we haven't go the go forward in the eight. While I'm sure a faster pass is preferable for a number 10 if the scrum's in retreat as now, surely that measure is in thousands of a second. If the pack's going backwards, the backs are on the back foot too. The real issue is having a dominant eight, as we agree our 2001 pack had the potential to be. Gits can be such a dominant force when given the opportunity. At the moment, he doesn't seem comfortable enough at half to be that force. Maybe he's getting mixed messages about what sort of game he's supposed to be playing. It will be interesting to see who they start in Auckland in a week. I'm sure the AB's back three would love little Mat G running at them near the fringes.
Alex
Guest
Well I think one of the biggest things about the Welsh Test was that the back line was running very flat and was out of kilter, what I believe he would bring to the position (when you have a coherent backline working deep) is more options than we currently have . He can attack the line , set up phases, backline preset moves , kick well . I dont know its about tuning things as well as we can , getting the best possible guys on the park , and then giving it to the opposition . So that at the end of the day we can finally put the pain of the Jones Era behind up. Dont you think? In reponse to the 2001 Lions Test that was a far superiour pack that GG was playing behind , this allowed him the time he needed to feed the ball out . Dont get me wrong he is a amazing player , in fact when you look at his game , his defence particularly I think has improved this year , and you can never ever discount his expierance . But his obsession for the last few years of being the Referee and number 9 all at the same time , along with this pressing problem . but you are quite correct he has taken as the champion that he is . I am thinking about the best way we can combat the worlds best at the RWC and beyond the GG Era
David
Guest
I don't understand the enthusiasm for Gits to play halfback. If it's an effective backline and snappy service you want, why play a running half? His darting runs from number nine against Wales did little more than throw the backs out of alignment and lose their structure in attack. And even then, any breaks he made were snuffed out by the cover. It's pretty hard for a number nine to make a break from anything but a scrum, so spread are the defences in the modern game. I agree with previous comments about GG's service behind a pack on the back foot. As an example, think back to his distribution behind a rampaging Wallabies eight in the third test against the Lions in 2001. He directed Finegan, Kefu et al to the weak spots in the Lions defence and we opened them up. Last week against the Boks, at times poor cleanout and protection of GG meant he was under more pressure at the breakdown that he should have been, thus some dodgy passes. The scrum just got worse as the game went on. We all know GG's not the player he once was, but no-one organises his players better, and his leadership, determination and spirit more than compensate for his deteriorating service. If all the Wallabies needed to win more tests (like one in South Africa before 2050!!!) was a faster pass at halfback, then I'm sure that could be arranged. Truth is, however, the Wallabies have other areas of more urgent concern. The positive way GG has handled the constant sniping from sections of the media is another mark of the man. Very great rugby player, not the best passer, but the best package.
Alex
Guest
I have just read all of these comments , and was thinking outloud , tell me is this to contrversial ; 1) firstly we cant overlook the fact that as the Professional Era in Australian Rugby Continues , we have no sunset clauses for senior players , these guys who have given incredible service to this country and the jersey , but why would they want to step down when the incomes that they provide for their familes for . The ACB has some definate ideas about changing the guard not all good but they are definate about it . We surely must find a way to more seemlessly allow these positional changes to happen . 2) Secondly at the risk of being a cynic , do we wonder in this modern game where dollars and cents come to the fore more often , allowing GG four more years allowed him to become the worlds most capped player , thus allowing significant marketing opportunities for both GG and the ARU , or am I merely just being devil's advocate ? I have in this site attacked the slowness of GG's passing which is impacting on our games more and more . Do we think a very fired up AB's on Saturday week will not be watching tapes of these past tests and their flankers must be salivating at the prospect of nailing the ball at the base of our scrum . Yes you are right this is a two fold problem as the Wallaby's scrum is a debarcle and GG's passing ! Some of you are saying that it is to late to experiment for the RWC , well I dont know about you guys I think we should be looking at all options to allow ourselves the best opportunities in Paris
joe
Guest
Sportym, just on JP and the hooking position, the argument seems to be that in the first half of the S14 this year his form was ordinary, but then came good late in the season and for his final appearance at Canberra Oval with Greegs and Bernie he played excellently for the win over the Crusaders. The other rumour getting around as to why he hasn't been picked is that 'he disrupts team harmony' ("has a destabilising influence") and so Knuckles and assistant coaches aren't interested. That said, let's not also forget how well Tai McIsaac played for the Force this year with his one-handed water-polo passes. He too can count himself unlucky not to be going to France.
Joshua Carmody
Guest
Zac - thanks and duly noted. I do agree with Spiro, on the whole. There's one major problem with GG's play; sometimes he has been ovely concerned with securing 'his' ruck area which has resulted in very slow ball. This has been a long term issue with GG. In contrast, Giteau seems extremely concerned with getting the ball out quickly which makes me wonder if he himself, standing in the centres, has been frustrated by slow ball from the ruck thus far. At times at halfback Giteau has been overly anxious and this hasn't allowed Larkham and the rest of the backline to settle and scan. These points, however, indicate two further issues; 1.Giteau needs more time at halfback to mature into the role. Connolly and co were far too reactive when pulling him from halfback; 2. the 'pace' of the Wallabies game, particularly bracketed between the ruck and 5/8, requires speeding up - a much quicker response and settle time is required of the backline between rucks to response decisively to a quicker halfback. Overall, Giteau has the talent to become Australias best ever halfback. He is a truly exceptional player. And if the forwards are encouraged to pass effectively from the ruck Giteau is therefore able to temporarily move into flyhalf or inside centre. Giteau needs more involvement in the game, not less, and the half back position is the best place for this to occur. Joshua.
Craig
Guest
Andrew, Sorry about that error in the World Cups, but you know what I mean. If we consider the World Cup though, which is all that should be considered at this stage (thats why Jake did what he did) Gregan is the best player for the number nine spot and Giteau is best at 12. After the World Cup do whatever you feel is necessary for 3 years. Experiment Sharpe at 9 and Dunning at 10 (with that drop goal of his) but to chop and change players and their positions with 3 months to World Cup is suicide. All Blacks proved it weekend before last. McAllister is no number 13. Lucky for them and unlucky for the rest of us that was learnt prior to the World Cup. Gregan is the best for the Australian number 9 jersey at the World Cup and the same for Giteau at 12.
Andrew Logan
Guest
Craig, One small correction - George Gregan has only won one World Cup in '99, not two, although he did go very close to orchestrating a marvellous win over England in 2003. He must now be marvelling at how quickly his "four more years" have passed! Your Giteau vs Gregan argument is a little academic, since you could argue that we should have asked the same question when Gregan replaced Farr-Jones...when Farr Jones replaced Hipwell....and so on. All great careers come to an end, and all great careers have to start somewhere too. Sometimes players orchestrate that end and leave on top. Sometimes they need a little coaxing. Great British showjumper Richard Meade once said "In sport there is only tremendous fulfilment, or tremendous disappointment. Nothing else in life is so cut and dried". Being dropped from a team is one of the risks of top level sport, and I would suggest that if George was replaced, he would take it like the man he has always shown us that he is - with dignity, strength and full support of his successor, knowing that by playing one more year, he rolled the dice and for once it came up against him. I think Australians to a man admire George enormously - regardless of what they think of his pass. Cheers...
Matt McRobert
Guest
I think the point that Georges game wained once the Australian scrum weakened is a pertinent one and one that is often forgotten in the hysteria that sometimes accompanies calls for his head. It is an old adage in both league and union that a halfback can only be truly effective as a playmaker when his forward pack is going forward. The fact that George is playing behind packs that struggle for parity let alone to dominate speaks volumes for his apparent loss of form. I'm often dismayed when so called experts call for Georges head when in the next breath they bag the Wallaby forwards...Which comes first? To my way of thinking, Yes, his game has suffered but he is a shining example of a player (much like Steve Waugh) who with limited ability but an unbelieveable will and strength of character has risen to the top and stayed there. He is an excellent example of how any rugby player should prepare themselves for their sport. He has been accused of running games at times with his "Jedi mind tricks" but again he is the one making the "suggestions" or creating the "illusions" it is the referees who act on them...you can hardly blame him for trying. I for one will miss George Gregan when he finally hangs up his boots...I dare say many of his team mates will feel the same way. When others about him are losing their heads George is the one they go to...he is calm, calculating and dispassionate when he needs to be...confident in his own abilities and damn the doubters, admirable qualities in any leader.
Jerry
Guest
Craig - Gregan's had a long career no doubt, but he wasn't round in 1991. I think that's only one world cup win (as good as the "four more years" sledge was in 03 it didn't actually win Aus the cup!).
Craig
Guest
It does amaze me however how the Aussie public has turned it's back on Gregan. There is no doubt that he is the best scrumhalf (halfback) in the country. He proved both in the Super 14 and the first test against Wales. When George came on he controlled the game. He is not the spring chicken he used to be, agreed, but he is undeniable, the best scrumhalf Australia has to offer right now. Giteau likes to use the space, but in today's game, if a halfback wants to take the gap he needs to be quick, which Giteau is, but also very strong, which he is not. Giteau is thus wasted at scrumie as all he is able to do is pass the ball to the backline, who I feel are weaker because he is not there to light the fire at 12. Joost vd Westerhuizen had the same problem towards the end of his career. He distribution of the ball became much slower, but what must be remembered is that Joost was always behind a massive, powerfull, dominate pack, thus allowing for him to take snipping runs as he had the momentum of the pack to work off. Australia do not have this luxury. The forwards will be dominated by any of the top 5 sides in the world. Thus the scrumhalf is always on the back foot. Now you have to ask yourself, who would you rather have running the show at 9 behind a pack going backwards? Giteau with 2 test's at 9 (both against Wales; first one a lucky draw thanks to the individual brilliance of Latham and the other a injury time win against a Welsh B side) or George Gregan, who has represented his nation with unprecedented pride at scrumhalf over 130 times, with two World Cup wins under his belt? As a Springbok fan I say play Giteau................
brumbie justin
Guest
I agree that some vocal Australians loath GG. It's more an indictment of the provincial politics of the game than any "Un-australian-ism!" i think. I try to separate a player's commitment and loyalty from any analysis of his abilities in the position he is chosen. No faulting George on the first point. On the second I think he is a bit like a cricket captain whose game has suffered as he has assumed more and more responsibility as captain. Left to just be ahalfback I think he would have been much more responsive to his own shortcomings in the latter part of his career. As it was he's spent the best part of the past few years doing whatever he had to to try and get a win. This was clear when he handed in the capataincy at the Brumbies - freed from that responsibility he had a fantastic season. In the end GG has become a target because of really terrible succession planning. If anyone put their hand up and then we had selectors and coaches who were willing to blood that talent we wouldn't be having this conversation.
taya
Guest
Spiro well said - no one from any sporting field could question or doubt the contribution to rugby GG has made - on and off the field!! (and i do agree with your summary of his playing career...) however it is now clear (as you state) that no replacement was groomed post 2003 in several positions - none more clear than half back ...and what a shame for chris !! what a shame (as previously said) we continue to seek league players when we have wonderful talent on our doorstep but time and time again continue to ignore it - to our fateful loss !! note - (maybe we need some more female coaches/selectors/administrators in this all male world of rugby - afterall there are some chics i know who know more about this game than their mates - and of course many SA !!) maybe GG is getting what happened to david campese - loved and admired by the world - loathed by australians..(well at least some vocal ones ...) it is a sad day when australians do not stand loyal to those great players of sport and what they have done for us !!
Terry Kidd
Guest
It may be too late for the experiment but I would still like to see it happen. I believe that Staniforth could quite likely be recognised as the premier No12 in world rugby after the RWC if he gets to play a few games.
spiro zavos
Guest
I don't think George Gregan's commitment to the teams he plays for, especially the Wallabies, and for Australia should ever be forgotten. I've been very critical of his play for some years while being supportive earlier on in his career when he was a great defensive halfback (Gregan's Tackle on Jeff Wilson) and a great distributor to a rampant forward pack with the short, inside flick to Owen Finegan being a matchwinner time after time. I also remember that the 1999 Rugby World Cup final was played on the same day that Australia was voting on the Republic issue. Gregan told journalists in the UK that winning the Republic vote was more important that a Rugby World Cup. This is a man with his priorties right. It was me who made the comment that 'George Gregan is a great player but not a great halfback.' My feeling now is that Gregan's successor should have been groomed after the 2003 Rugby World Cup. That player should have been Chris Whitaker. John Connolly clearly had the idea of promoting Sam Cordingley when Whitaker went overseas. But Cordingley has been injured so often that he hasn't been able to establish his place in the Wallabies. There is a possibility that Connolly might go for a Giteau/halfback and Scott Staniforth/inside centre split for the test against the All Blacks. But it is really too late for experiments like this, probably.
Terry Kidd
Guest
I would like to say to Andrew Logan ... well done, a brilliant article. Goerge Gregan is undoubtably a great footballer, a great australian and a wonderful person. His leadership skills on and off the field are to be lauded. His nous at the scrumbase is obviously legendary. Undoubtably the Wallabies play better as a team with him on the field but, the unanswerable question .... how many of those recent close test losses may have been close test wins if there had been better and quicker service to the backline? We have all seen this year in the tests that the Wallaby backline is more potent with faster service. I think we have to run with that thought, unless George can improve and speed his service of the ball very quickly then we should change halfbacks. The team is more important than the individual no matter how illustrious the individual is.
Zac Zavos
Editor
Guys - this is not a forum to discuss race or personal details. Please keep it on the sport. thanks.
Phil
Guest
I have two theories on Mr. Gregan... 1) The only player that could have seriously challenged him for his spot in the 90's broke his neck twice. Matt Issac was a better player than Chris Whitaker and was always viewed a serious threat to Gregan's time at the top. He was an amazing player and leader, much like Gregan. He had an amazing pass though, much better than Gregan's. 2) Who put their hand up to replace him in the current decade? Two many people read Greg Growden ( I stopped when I was about 13) and no one understands the essence of a forward pack getting driven back, as mentioned above.
Andrew Logan
Guest
Darryl,
Agree with your call for caution,.
I'd like to reinforce my own considerable respect for George Gregan as a person, a rugby player and guardian of Australian rugby values.
And yes sportym, of course the problem is with the Australian pack, however, as sheek mentioned re Hipwell, a halfback with a fast flat pass can camouflage some of the packs inadequacies, until such time as we build forward strength. It is easier to slot in a fast half, than to turn up a whole new hard-as-nails pack overnight.
Andrew Logan.