Saturday’s test result has drawn the full range of emotional responses. For the winners, a palpable relief swiftly turning into a surge of confidence. For the losers, disappointment expressed through blame and then self-doubt. But putting these immediate responses aside, how good a job has Connolly and co. done so far this year?
From a win/loss point of view the Wallabies have achieved, but not excelled; having won their 5 home games and lost the 2 away. But you need to look underneath those numbers to get the real story. At home against Wales, SA and NZ they managed dramatic turn-arounds, coming back from big points deficits to win, a signature of some of the best Wallabies teams of old. In the two away losses they demonstrated fighting spirit and control under pressure for long periods of both matches.
As for the most important benchmark – against the world’s number 1 – putting all excuses and and whinges aside (from both sides), the facts state it’s one apiece. The All Blacks out-muscled Australia in the second half at Eden Park, the Wallabies shredded the Kiwi backline at the ‘G. These games were only 3 weeks apart, but their sequencing dramatically colours perception.
Most importantly, what came through all of these games is the re-discovered Wallaby quality of self-belief, which we haven’t seen since the final games of the last world cup. So on this point at least, it’s well done to Knuckles and the team.
But what about player development? It’s important to remember the state of play when Knuckles took the poisoned chalice from Eddie last year; an over reliance on underperforming League stars in the backs, and a complete neglect of tight forward play. Neither of these problems are fully solvable in a year, but there have been some big strides.
In the backs, whilst we’re ultimately fielding a tried (and aging) combination, there’s been experimentation along the way. Giteau at 9, Huxley minding Latham’s spot and Ashley-Cooper trying showing class at outside and winger. There are more true rugby options than the Wallabies have had for a long time across these positions and it’s been encouraging to see the likes of Staniforth pushing from the bench.
In the forwards Australia are competing against the best in all areas but the front row. Here, they’ve tried new blood and realised that it’s just going to take time to develop talent and experience; world class props are made not born. In the meantime, Foley has obviously been doing overtime to make the best of a bad hand through technical means, and almost getting away with it. Further improvement here is critical for any RWC aspirations.
But are the selectors – as Grumbling Growden would say – being over-conservative going into the RWC? A smart strategist once said that what your opponent would like least is usually a good way to go. I think I know who the Kiwis would least like to play against in the world cup out of Larkham vs Beale or Gregan vs Holmes. The young guys are the Wallabies future, but not their world cup present.
What’s been encouraging from a selection point of view has a policy that has said ‘no favourites’, which has in turn bred internal competition and hunger – qualities sadly lacking as recently as last year’s European tour.
In all, it hasn’t been a perfect performance from Connolly and co, but I believe what they have done is to steadily improve the team, create options, and find that crucial self belief, bringing the Wallabies back from jokers to contenders.
But that’s my rating – what’s yours?
Matt Rowley
Guest
Swifty, Completely agree with you on the Growden story. Have quoted you in my latest blog post 'Wallaby coach split - I smell hype again'. Matt
swifty
Guest
Matt that Growden story is his worst ever. the bloke should write for women's day with the amount of unnamed gossip be trots out. at the end of the day Connolly won't be remembered for his legacy - the next coach will take either the hit or the spoils. Connolly will only be remembered for this world cup. His selections reflect that. Would love to see a show of hands who in the above is from NSW and who from QLD (ballymore by myself). me thinks state rivalries alter our perception when it comes to connolly.
Matt R
Guest
Peter M, There's a hell of a lot in your comment/novel (must be good to get that off your chest) that I'd have to agree with. When even the most positive of us have self doubts about the Wallabies, they must sound very much like what you've written. With respect to Knuckles' rating though, I think Ben got it right when he wrote that a lot of this was about the current player mix. You can argue the faults of almost all of our players but in the end there are few options with the experience to take you into a world cup. I don't think you can blame Knuckles for this, he's given just about everyone in the Aussie S14 teams who merited it a run. There isn't anyone else for him to realistically choose from. Where we need to rate him on is team performance and development. From the depths of where ol' squinty left off - was it 9 losses in a row and 5th in IRB rankings? - I think even the pessimistic would have to admit that he's not only managed to halt the decline but get this imperfect team travelling in the right direction - within 2 years. Was interesting to read this in Rugby heaven about the coaching team unity. I'm not sure if this is just Grumbly Growden playing up a story to fill the weeks without a game (there seems to be a pattern here) or whether there really is something going on. Would amaze (but not surprise) me how a team of 3 hand selected coaches can't manage to keep it together. Matt
Ben
Guest
Peter Very nice analysis. I would say that, at the moment, we might get one person into a World XV - Dan Vickerman. Maybe Latham as well if he had not been injured and played more this year. I think that, with the exception of the scrum which is still underpowered, our forwards are doing well. We have a strong lineout and plenty of solid choices in the backrow although the No. 8 is still a little unsettled. Maybe McMeniman and Elsom? Gives us plenty of agression and four lineout targets. Let's face it, our scrum isn't going to be cured overnight so lets strengthen the lineout (as there are more lineouts than scrums anyway) and use that as the main attacking platform. In the backs, I agree Gregan is too slow, Larkham is only showing touches of his former brillance and is rarely running directly at the line, Gietau is a wonderful talent but runs sideways which shifts our attack laterally too early, Mortlock rarely passes and there is a real lack of pace in our wingers. If Giteau played half for the S14 we could play him there more confidently but his talent demands selection somewhere so inside centre by default. I would rather see Staniforth at inside centre to straighten the attack. Mortlock is inspirational and breaks the line but won't pass outside. What is the value of a centre who can't/won't put the winger into space? Again his leadership and ability to break tackles demands his selection but is not really best suited to centre. Gerrard has some skills but is too slow for a winger. Mitchell shows poor judgment. Tuqiri has slowed down this year and needs to regain his speed. Turner is the most exciting talent in years and has been ignored. Ioane has poor hands but some real speed and got a single chance before fading back into Aus A. Latham has been injured and is out of condition but will hopefully bounce back. Part of this is due to Knuckles' conservatism but part of it is just the player mix we have at the moment. Unfortunately we just seem to be in a bit of a trough at the moment. Who know? Maybe in two-three years time a backline of 9 Giteau 10 Beale 11 Turner 12 Barnes or Q Cooper 13 Ashley-Cooper 14 Ioane 15 Shepherd might have us in a better position? Can we ask the French to put the RWC off for just a couple of years until we have got our player strength up again?
Jerry
Guest
Craig - sorry, meant to address that to Andrew B.
Peter Marks
Guest
Connolly can only be given anything like a B rating if we accept his own regularly and mindlessly repeated comment that there are more positives than negatives from the Wallabies performances. In most matches, that simply wasn't the case. Take away the win at the MCG and the Wallabies record in 2007 is less than average. They have struggled to put away second or third string teams, and generally have played a very unimaginative style of rugby: crunching runs in the middle by Mortlock aside, the backline seems devoid of real flair, skill and self-confidence. Gregan is no threat in attack (hasn't been for several years) Larkham looks jaded, a little slow and slightly gun shy, tending to fade across field. Not long ago he seemed to be able to slice through gaps and make searing 30 metre runs before off loading beautifully times long passes. Haven't seen much of that this year. His kicking is woeful. Giteau is great from broken play, but he too tends to run side ways as a first option, before trying a side step top teams are waiting for and can counter. Mortlock's power is a real posiitve, but he rarely sets up his wings; in fact, he's more likely to off load inside than outside. That can lead to tries (as it did against the All Blacks) but perhaps had the All Blacks had 15 men on the field at the time there mighthhave been more cover. Stil, credit where it's due--and he deserves the captaincy. The Wallaby wingers these days essentially are passengers, the ball rarely getting to them quickly in set play. This is not so much Connolly's fault as Johnson's, and the failure of courage and skill to go wide quickly bogs the Australian attack down in midfield. Luckily, Huxley will be replaced by Latham-- he (Huxley) was cruelly out of his depth at international level, as I think is Ashely Adam-Cooper, whose sucession of schoolboy mistakes in the Eden Park tests (kicks into touch; taking the ball back into the 22 and then kicking out; misreading the pace and bounce of Rococoko's fairly innocuous kick at the end of the first half and then gifting the All Blacks a penalty) should keep him out of the top flight. Sure, he was playing out of position, his mistakes were in basic skills. Latham, of course, will be well short of international level fitness, and as good as he is on the counter attack, he is very much a one man band. He either scores a try himself or . . . . I can't rememember many beautifully times Latham passes for others to score, and if you don't kick him the ball with 20 metres of free space, you can effectively keep him out of the game. Enough has been said of Tuqiri's limitations. All in the all the Wallaby backline is a vey fractured and unimaginative collection. All the swapping of positions, and the failure to promote and install fresh players should be placed on Connolly's score card, and it doesn't make for impressive reading. The Wallaby forwards have improved but the front row could hardly have got worse (remember Twickenham). The second row is a strength, and Elsom is fiery and tries hard, even if the huffing and puffing sometimes leads to brain explosions. The number 8 problem is unsolved, with the Wallabies still not having a credible 80 miunute performer, an obvious deficit in the hard games ahead. Sadly, Australia's amazing strength at open side flanker means that it can't play both Waugh (a top flight player) and Smith (a genuine world class player). Smith's undoubted class raises the tough question of how many Wallabies would make a World 15 today. I'd say none. Smith would miss out to McCaw, although he'd run him close. But do any of the others warrant a place? A fit Latham, perhaps, but he's weeks (at least) away from that. Some might argue for Giteau, but only on some general sense of his capacities, not on the basis of him being the best inside centre in the world. He wouldn't get in my team. Before you say Mortlock think Brian O'Driscoll. No one else is up to snuff. Connolly has to shoulder some blame either for not finding new players during his tenure, and for not putting together a team that scares other teams. Everyone has respect for Australia's scrapiness, its abilti to hang on the ropes while taking a dreadful beating and then come back. But no one is intimidated by the Wallabies before they go on the field, as they did in the days of Eales, Burke, young Gregan and Larkham. Other teams worry that the Wallabies might come back from the death to snatch a late and unlikely victory, but the top teams all think they have Australia's measure. How to judge the Tri-Nations? South Africa's decision to field a team of second or third stringers meant that Australia got little benefit from the encounter in Australia, and got little guidance as to how they are travelling. It wasn't an uplifting win.The All Blacks have only played well in stages this year. That was also true at this stage last year. Whether they're keeping their powder dry for the World Cup is debatable, but it sems clear they are not playing to their potential. But in the first half of the Melbourne game they were well on top without putting the game away (partly due to the Wallabies' tenaciousness, and All Black rustiness). At Eden Park they effectively shut Australia out of the second half, an ominous state of affairs. In the game as a whole, though, the Wallabies rarely ever got in the All Blacks 22, certainly not as the result of sustained attack. They had over 60 percent of ball and territory inthe first 40 minutes, but mostly between the half way and 22. That inability to punch through to the tryline reflects badly on the ability of the forwards to drive ahead relentlessly, as used to be the case 5 years ago, when the Wallabies scored tries with a cold inevitability (rememebr Kefu in John Eales's final test). It also suggests that the backs had no idea of how to pick the lock of the All Blacks defence. Neither of these are good signs, especially if we accept that the All Blacks are playing at about 70% of their capacity. The Wallabies, by contrast, seem to have little room for substantial improvement in the next month or so. sure Latham will help, and Tuqiri can on occasions surprise, but I think that the team that goes on for the main World Cup games will be a known quantity with a lot of players slightly beyond their use by date. They have very little to worry the best teams, although they'll play the ugly rugby necessary to keep themselves in the hunt. And they're good enough to thrash the also-rans. Connolly has had plenty of time to blood new players and to instill all the players with a sense of flair and improve their skill levels. They had the grittiness even under the deluded reign of Eddie Jones. So what has Connolly added? Very little. The negatives out weigh the positives. C- for me. At best.
Chris
Guest
Craig, As a Bok fan you're not really in a position to criticise Australia's away record, are you?
Craig
Guest
Jerry, I never made any mention of a quick throw so not too sure exactly what you are on about. I am a Bok fan. To see Wallaby fans have to scrape the bottom of the barrell regarding winning against the sides I mentioned and give the coach a B+ based on these performances just puts Australian rugby into perspective for me. Then again we can always blame the ref, or the points allocated to a drop goal, or the TMO, or the distance travelled, or the rain, or those dirty Springboks for a Wallaby defeat. But NEVER blame the lack of depth, or one-dimensional coaching plan, or lack of a world-class tight five, or the penalty machine Rocky, or the lack of disipline from the senior, higest paid team members......... I mean, how could those influence the game.
Andrew B
Guest
Jerry, The only other thing the laws state re: a quick throw in is a person forced out of play must release it to allow a quick throw. AAC wasn't forced out nor carried it over the line, he mearly regathered it over the line, and thats why I think a quick throw was not an option.
Jerry
Guest
Craig - Connolly's assertion re the advertising hoardings is as wrong as his claim that Leonard was offside. There's nothing in the rules to say that you can't take a quick throw in once the ball has touched the advertising hoarding. The only thing that prevents a quick throw in are: a) using a different ball b) if someone other than the person throwing in has touched it. An advertising hoarding isn't a person, so it doesn't stop a throw in. The rules don't actually mention that the person who took the ball out doesn't count either, but that's how the rule has been reffed.
Andrew B
Guest
Alex, 2 line breaks, Mortlock the only one looking dangerous. Dunning went down about 5 times. But in no way conceivable was the ref "our biggest points of concern". Yep, a few went against us (Morlocks high tackle, and when AAC threw the ball away it should not have been a penalty, as NZ were not entitled to a quick line out - should have been just a free kick for time wasting), but many went our way also. Look at the McCaw knock on call that they were probalby going to score from (bounced off his head, so not a knock on) and the number of times we took the lineout jumpers in the air without a single penalty. It goes both ways. It taints and devalues your whole agruement when you bring the ref into it. Craig, Don't forget we just beat Italy, and beat Scotland too....
Alex
Guest
Craig you are obviously being very kind to Eddie Jones, wow yes you are quite correct he took us to a final in 2003 , and yet the history books will show that we only lost by a drop goal , however we never really took the ascendency in that match . Similarly post 2003 RWC Jones got the players so obsessed with statistics and numbers they forgot the the main principal of Rugby was to score tries and win games. Quite simply he enabled the entire test team to suffer "fear of loss " so badly that they were not running forward. Fast forward to Eden Park the other Saturday , still not taking the ball straight to the line , can any one tell me how many line breaks we had? Can anyone tell me who looked like they were going to break the line ? Can anyone tell me how many times Matt Dunning got monstered in the scrums . Yes it is true that our lineouts are much improved (when we throw the ball in straight ) yes we are seeing rolling mauls and decent rucks . But surely one of the biggest points of concern was that we got some tough penalties against us at Eden Park and we allowed that to determine the game . Surely with the way we played in the first half , things were happening (not plenty but enough) GG was pressuring the line , taking pressure off Larkham by those good positional kicks from the base of the scrum , our lineouts were fantastic . But still our forward coaches have not yet got this pack to scrummage at a truly intenational level . Surely to win not only the quaters , and the semis against what I believe will be traditional packs (ie ones that can scrummage) we can not get the platform we require to allow the backs to attack the line and break it . I am still thinking that Knuckles has gotten a C no more no less
Craig
Guest
B+ is a bit too forgiving if you ask me. Apart from the victory against the AB's (which was impressive) he has had victories over; 1) Welsh B side (at the hooter in the 1st test) 2) Springbok B/C side 3) Fiji B side They couldn't close out in South Africa when they were up and played the best I have seen the wallabies play for years, and they got thumped back down to earth in Auckland. Eddie Jones took the Wallabies to a final which no one believed they could get to. And they lost owing just to a drop goal from Wilkinson. If Knuckles gets them anywhere near the semi's it will be a job well done. Remember, if the Wallabies lose to Wales in Cardiff (!!!) they face the Boks in the quarters.
stillmissit
Guest
Guys I think you have summed up John Connolly's score card since taking over and I think B+ is about right for the results I am thinking more about his legacy. Eddie Jones nearly ruined Australian rugby and he continues to try to do the same thing in SA so in that light JC has done a great job. The coach to take over will pick up an experienced team without the spark neccessary to take it forward. I think the conservative criticism of JC is well founded as can be seen by the Matt Cockbain and Luke Burgess situation one a great player over the hill the other a peace offering to NSW. Without any of the young talent used in the Wallabies consistently, Cameron Shepherd excluded, we havent a base to build off next year and the new coach will have to start again. With little or no exposure in the Wallabies to most of the young and hot talent we have coming through I hope we dont lose them overseas. In terms of a legacy to Australian Rugby JC would have to score a C with a talk from the head master.
Ben
Guest
I agree to some extent that Knuckles has changed the way we play, I just don't think that those changes are very profound. We have improved a bit, but it is no quantum leap from the Jones era. I will admit that less than 2 years is not really enough time to change things. Also, some more profound changes might have been accomplished with more support. For example, if Giteau had been played at halfback for the Force, he may have made a more successful transition to that position at the international level. Due to lack of experience, he showed flashes of brillance but not enough consistency and by default we are back to Gregan- Larkham-Giteau. (I am not blaming Mitchell by any means for this. I am just simply saying things could have been different with some changes.) Giteau at half meant we could have started someone like Staniforth at 12 which would straighten the attach and stiffen up the defence somewhat. Similarly other players have been trialled, but many got only a handful of games which is not enough to really show a player's potential. Here the problem has been more of limited time. IF Connolly had 4 years he could have persisted with those players for longer to bring them along a bit better. The most damning problem (in my view) is that the touring team is so conservative and unexceptional. If Polota-Nau is fit, why has he been overlooked for Hardman? And so on. Worst of all is the news that Cockbain is on the shortlist for injury coverage. This is a slap in the face to Wallace-Harrison, Campbell, Mumm and so on who have performed well this year in S14 and Aus A. I would have rated Connolly a weak 'B' on the back of the improvements so far and taking into account the limited time he had, but the touring team drags that down. I know the argument about how the NZ would rather face - Gregan or Holmes carries some weight. But similarly, would they rather face Hardman or Polota-Nau? and Mitchell or Turner? Known quantities aren't necessarily more feared.
Paul W
Guest
The Wallabies have certainly improved over the last eighteen months and are more than capable of winning the Cup but they really needed to make more progress than is evident in the Cup selections. Knuckles as changed a few of the personnel but the team still relies upon a pretty fragile pair in Gregan and Larkham - at five eighth particularly there's very limited cover should Larkham get injured. Barnes would struggle to step up in a quarter final - Shepherd's injury is a real problem. Likewise in the front row there's little depth and even the first choices are struggling - Shepherdson is playing well but Dunning and Baxter are well short of the mark. Locks are stable and reasonably deep but loosies are not - Smith and Waugh won't play at the same time and although Elsom looks up to it, injuries to Palu and Lyons could put a lot of pressure on Hoilles (and what's with Cockbain's situation?). They're a good but not great side. They'll make it to the semi's but I doubt there'll be a repeat of 2003 or 1999!
Farmer
Guest
We cannot criticise Connolly for not searching for new talent. Since he took over there are numerous players given a chance to step up. Some have done that , others have not, others have been injured and others have given it away. In addition to the players listed by Matt as havingbeen given a go , we can add McIsaac, Fava, Mitchell Chapmen, Polat Nau, Campbell, Sheehan, Fairbanks, Shepherd and Valentine. No one can criticise Knuckles and his offsiders of not searching for the best group to take us to the RWC this year. Some of the above have been injured and therefore may have made the squad if htey were fit overthe last 3 mths. Some people you can never please. You experiment, give all players an opportunity to step up, they criticise for sub standard performances by the work in progress. Most coaches have 4 years to get ready for a RWC and therefore the process is a little more orderly. When you only have 2 years , things are bound to be a little more chaotic. When you finally finish the sorting and sifting and settle on the best guys to do the job in 6 weeks time - they criticise for being boring and conservative. It is a lot easier poking sticks than being constructive.
Matt Rowley
Guest
Ben, I think you're a little harsh on the new blood argument. Other than AAC, the new blood that Connolly has given a run since the Jones team you outline includes, Elsom, Hoiles, Palu, Horwill, Cordingly (I said new, not young), Norton-Knight, Huxley, Iaone, Staniforth, Shepherdson, Blake, Holmes (prop), Robinson, Moore & Frier. Of that group about half have cemented a spot, even if it's from the bench. That looks like a pretty good balance between injecting new blood and keeping some stability and experience. In my view, a turn-over of more than the 35% you calculate is simply not helpful for a team's development. Look at England - they were also in a hole after RWC'03, but they've turned over so many positions so many times since, they've no idea which way is up or down any more. Ask a pom who the core of their team is at the moment and they've got no clue. We could easily have been in the same position. I'm really excited to see what the Wallabies could look like beyond the RWC with some of the young talent around. However, remember back to how the Wallaby backline performed in the warm up matches this season until the old firm got back into place - all over the shop. That's not going to get us far in the RWC this year, which in my opinion has got to be the focus. Matt R
swifty
Guest
Ben, yes the players are the same but they're not playing the same way. i guess a coach who IMPROVES the way a team of players are playing must have some edge on a coach who just changes the whole team and provides no COACHING. Gregan is now playing like he deserves his spot The front row has had some worthwhile coaching Mortlock is back to his best form Lyons has found he can't just look big and not do anything anymore we now field one fetcher in the backrow Claims of predicatbility are levelled when Connolly re-selects gregan/larkham/giteau but when he drops long time hooker jeremy paul for two younger players (moore, freier) everyone whinges about it. Our forwards, since connolly's time, now even engage in the occassional rolling maul and counter-ruck. Our defence in the first test was out of sight compared to anything under jones. B+ sounds fair for Connolly. If we make it through to the final we might need to revise that grade.
Ben
Guest
Everyone seems to agree that Knuckles was brought in to shake up the existing players and selection policies which were not producing results in the Jones era, as much, if not more so, than the strategy and tactics. What has he actually done? Lets look at the first Jones match in the 2005 Tri-Nations (quite a few like Mortlock and Vickerman missed the later matches and the November tour so it isn't a good reflection of the firrst choice team) and the most recent Test. I have changed the players somewhat were Connolly's obvious first choice (Latham, Tuqiri) was unavailable but would have been picked if available. 2005 2007 Fullback: Latham - Latham Wings: Sailor & Tuqiri & Mitchell - Tuquiri & Gerard & (Mitchell or Ashley-Cooper) Centres: Turinui & Giteau & Mortlock - Mortlock & Giteau & Staniforth Fly-half: Larkham - Larkham Half: Gregan & Whitaker - Gregan No 8: Lyons - Lyons & Hoiles Flankers: Smith & Roe & Waugh - Smith & Elsom & Waugh Locks: Sharpe & Vickerman & Chisholm - Sharpe & Vickerman & McMeniman Props: Dunning & Young & Baxter - Dunning & Shepherdson & Baxter Hookers: Paul & Moore - Moore & Frier So while this is a snapshot from two matches only, we see two changes in the front row, one change at lock, one change at flanker, one change at No. 8/half (given the different bench composition), one change in the centres and maybe one or two changes at wing. 7 or 8 changes out of 22 which is 31% to 36% but allowing for forced changes (Sailor, Whitaker and Young no longer available) and the natural changes expected over two years as some players make way for new players, the nucleus of the team has not really changed at all. In particular, where are the younger, up and coming players? One in Ashley-Cooper since Knuckles took the reins. Frankly after all the experimentation in earlier matches this year before the Tri-Nations we are effectievly back where we started. On the tactical side there have been some improvements but really nothing much to write home about. Our scrum is better but still weaker than most other, our lineout is still strong but it was under Jones, we are basically competing much the same at the breakdown, Gregan/Larkham are still slow, hesitant but inspirational, and the backline has hardly moved at all and is playing fairly similar rugby to two years ago. The attitude seems to have improved somewhat although the silly hijinks with Tuqiri and Huxley suggest the improvement has not been across the board. Other than the win at the MCG, and given the wobbly showings against a weak Wales side, I would rate Knuckles a 'C' at best. To be fair, he inherited the job with less than two years to prepare for the RWC but his selections have fallen back into conservatism recently. The touring squad is, except for Barnes, wholly unexceptionable and predictable. We seem to have created a lot of noise to go into the RWC with a team almost identical to that which Jones probably would have taken. Maybe I will be generous and say 'C+'.