Where has the Wallaby razzle dazzle gone?

OJ, Jerrry, and Plasmodium, thanks again. Gosh, I thought this was a rugby thread :-) The newspaper must have gotten Robert Horry and the rings wrong. My nephew was wrong too. I began to watch NBA only in 2002 when I went back to the Philippines. You know, when in Rome...But I'm back here and no NBA on free TV. Now you've got me motivated to watch Bill Russell, and Robert Horry against the Kings :-( Hopefully Ch 10 HD. Also, hopefully college American Football and the end of the season bowls. When Don Lane hosted American Football on ABC long ago, I wrote to ask college football to be broadcast, and they did! OJ, don't get me started on - hold your breath - "ruck infringements". I share your views. But I could write a doctoral thesis 8-)

THELMA - being a tad older than most I saw the great Dick Butkus play linebacker for the Bears. Imagine a Cliffy Palu who can sprint like a back and hit like a howitzer and you'll have an idea of how just one man can intimidate an offense. What a Number 8 he would have made. And what a center Paul Hornung would have made. I also saw the Wilt Chamberlain/Bill Russell show. But for knowing why the basket was up there, it's hard to get past Rick Barry. Incidentally, they wanted Wilt to try his hand at baseball but he didn't. As he said, "I have too big a strike zone."

He won three with the Lakers from 2000-02. I'll never forget the famous shot he made against Sacramento in 2002. Smiley is a semi colon plus left bracket and so forth.

Thelma - Horry got 3 titles with the Lakers.

OJ, thanks! I don't watch Classic NBA replays because I can't stand the tight short pants and the long socks. (How do you get the smiley emoticon here?) On Larry Bird, he looks like a creature that's been stretched from end to end. Beg your pardon but the newspaper clearly said that Robert Horry had 5 championship rings (up to 2007): 2 from Houston, 1 from the Lakers, and 2 from the Spurs. What did he do with the fifth ring? He chucked it into a drawer and proceeded to forget it. While poor Carl Malone...

Davo...I genuinely think that we need a second playmaker...Giteau is a NO 12...this would help Burgess get those forwards out of the way when Giteau is isolated.

Our forwards are going well in some aspects but providing protection for Burgess and getting out of the way of his pass to the backline are two areas they need to improve. This plus generally quicker ball out of the rucks and mauls will assist the backline to look a little better. The other issue is lack of a real passing five eighth. The only guy who seems to be able to throw long accurate passes in traffic is Sam N-K. Beale and perhaps Cooper have this skill too but all three are perhaps a little skittish to be current starting 5/8 options for the Wallabies. The accurate long ball from the 5/8 seems to have gone from oz rugby. Mehrtens, Spencer and Carter all good exponents of it for NZ, as ohtani pointed out, less so in structured play these days but so often you see Carter start off a counter attack with a long pass to open spaces. But the guys in Aus rugby who I believe are the best passes dont seem to be favoured. Looking at the Western Force I often thought they looked better when James Hilgendorf was at 5/8 rather than Giteau....and where is he now ??

Thelma, I think defensive great Bill Russell and his 11 NBA championships is a better example than Robert Horry ;) Horry actually has 7 rings, not a bad defender but more noted for clutch shots.

The irony of the Twickenham match is that only try scored by the Wallabies came from a phase play/quick ball play in the style of the Eddie Jones regime. Some posters have rued the enormous tackle count in favor of the Wallabies. I actually think it is a plus. Their defense held up. Defense wins games. I think of Mike Ditkas's Chicago Bears in the '80s (undefeated season except for the Dan Marino-led Miami Dolphins). Of Bobby Simpson and cricket fielding practices, and the climb towards the peak from the Frank Worrel trophy onwards. Of the San Antonio Spurs and Robert Horry, him with the 5 championship rings. And of course, the 1999 Rugby World Cup, when Australia conceded only one try throughout the pools (to the USA). Yup, dropped passes cause concern (Earth to Giteau/Mortock!). "Play what's in front of you" is such a sea-change to the Wallabies. I think I'm just beginning to understand it (not having watched the Crusaders since the Christchurch fog, or what I could glimpse through the fog!). It's incessant break-outs, at full pace. All those players on full gallop, passing to a teammate visible from the corner of the eye. I've wondered why RD is so keen on T Tahu. He and the likes of Mortlock make the initial breach and the troops are supposed to swarm through the drawbridge in some confused fashion. Hopefully the opposing team is more confused than they are. I'm exaggerating, as usual. i've seen Sivivatu crab across the field and suddenly veer through the defense. The centers are not supposed to be just battering rams (I concede, it makes them look sensational), they're also supposed to have soft hands, instinctive support, and a good sense of field positions. And defensive nous. I'm not looking forward to waking up at 6am to watch the French and the Wallabies.

Fredfunk, I agree, we are yet to see the Wallaby back line play of old, and yes I concede it does depend on a pack moving forward to create the space, but I though the ELVs were supposed to give the backs room at the set piece. Seems like most of the guys out there still see Mortlock as a 13 and I agree completely. We are still searching for that inventive number 10. Giteau loves to run, Deans needs to let him do just that at 12. I thought the backline looked much stronger against Italy when Cooper came on, mostly when he stepped into the 10 role. The rest of the backline looks the goods. AAC is probably playing conservatively because he remembers Latham's early days when he was caned for being too attacking and risky. They don't call 15 the custodian for nothing! He certainly looks steady against the high ball and given the increasing number of up and unders we need a pair of safe hands at the back. I agree with Melon, our next number 10 will come from S14 (Cooper/Beale), 13 is not an issue with Horne/Tahu on the horizon even if Mortlock can't make it to 2011. Barnes will backup Gitteau at 12. We just need a season or two to put all the pieces of the jigsaw together.

Razzle dazzle went out with the 90s. Look at the All Blacks, 90% of the time they score off turnover ball. They can work the ball through the backs in broken play, but passing out of a ruck against a set defence? Forget about it. Practically every break ends in a turnover. They only score from set play against piss poor defence. They take their opportunities and are efficient for the most part, but unless it's big Tony Woodcock on the wing it's not heart stopping stuff. If I could change one thing about the game it wouldn't be any ELVs, it would be stricter enforcement of offsides at the ruck. Ireland were offside at the ruck on the weekend and the All Blacks followed suit and nothing makes back play uglier.

Hoy, I think Deans is trying out different combinations - partly out of necessity (with Barnes injured) but also just to see what works. I'm hoping he will try the Barnes, Giteau, Mortlock/Cross combination in the nearish future. I wouldn't be surprised if he ultimately tries a youngster at 10 - whoever steps up during the next Super 14 comp. Once we have found something that clicks, we should stick with it for a while. That time hasn't come yet... but I think it will. It is also good to have players who have been tried and tested at this level around as backups and to put pressure on any who see themselves as incumbents. Same goes for the wings. I 100% agree with you on Mitchell and Lote. As I've said before, MY major concern is fullback. Latham left a HUGE hole. I'm hoping Shepherd will really step up during the next Super 14.

I don't think the problems the Wallaby backs encountered in scoring against England indicates a general malaise within the team. Like any good backline you need the forwards to produce good quick ball that the backs can see and judge their run on to the pass. It also requires a sense of rhythm where the ball is passed in front of the player and is moved with fluidity and timing. While the scrum received many plaudits there was a lot of ball turned over by both teams and the Wallaby forwards didn't drive forward enough to create more space for their backs. When the backs did receive opportunities it was poor decision making in some cases that prevented them from developing further. However the Wallaby backs have scored some very good tries and from setpieces, the scorcher in Auckland being one example of a well constructed and executed play. I guess many comments on the Roar by Aussie fans illustrate that this current team is still very much a work in progress. First people were critical of the forwards and in particular the scrum, then the inconsistent lineout, poor defence, inability to close out tight games and now their poor attack. But considering how much they have improved upon their overall performances from 2007 thus far, the foundations being laid by Deans will begin to bear fruit soon. Lok out for the poor team that strikes the Wallabies on the day when they put everything together.

I don't know that it will come Melon. I am spiteful in my appraisal of League converts. I just don't think they play the game well. I think Rogers was the best of any to come over, because he could make his own gaps. Cross running accross fields irks me no end. Drew Mitchell is in cracking form, this year and last year, but watch him get dropped for Lote. Bad decision in my books as Lote isn't a winger that can find the line like Mitchell. I missed most of the game against England, so I can't comment on that one, but AAC seems very reluctant to try his hand and run back kicks. There goes attacking oppurtunities from broken play. I didn't think so until recently, but maybe Gits is a better 12. I always thought Barnes was not inventive enough for 5/8, but maybe he doesn't need to be. He has a better pass, and with Gits and Mortlock (at least for a while anyway) outside him, he could hit one at will. Perhaps RD is fixing problems as he goes. First up, the scrum. Job almost done there (maybe). Maybe next up is the backline running again, and looking dangerous? Pull a few moves out ala Rod McQueen.

It'll come. Allow some time for players to settle into positions and combinations to form.

These things go in cycles. When I first started following rugby in the late 60s/early 70s, our backlines threw the ball around because they had no choice. It was to make up for the deficiency in our forward play. By the late 70s, when we had some good forwards, our backline play had become more dour. Then in the early 80s, along came the likes of the Ella brothers, O'Connor & Campese. Of the 3 greatest Wallabies teams - circa 1984, c. 19991, c. 1999 - I prefer them in the order given. Others might prefer the reverse order. The tragedy of the team circa 1999 is that they had a backline to kill most opponents but rarely used them in that capacity, which is a tragedy. It goes back to the laws of the game, but that's another story..........

Major issue I think is lack of a 10 actually playing at 10. Barnes needs to be pushed in one (when fit). Also, Giteau is much better at 12, would mean Aus could do without Cross for the moment.

I believe that a lot of the problem is that for the last couple of years the backline has been systematically stripped of it's "rugby nous". This was done by the previous coach's "automaton" approach to having every move scripted. This was then replicated down through the ranks. Now that the shackles are off, the backs are reaping the results of not working in intuitive combinations for the last few years. I would guess that it will take a little time for all the backs to get to the same point. At the moment some are a little more free in their thought and are constantly out thinking their supports. With luck and time the confidence and intuitiveness will return. Just my 2 cents (inc GST)

Frank, What about Cross & Giteau's breakjhroughs in 1st half? With a pass to support & Cross playing Union instead of League, those were tries. Agree that later it was like Club rugby, but service even from quick ball was poor. Jools-USA

I'm glad someone else has pointed out the paucity of Australia's backline play. AAC looks like an accident waiting to happen. He was easily stripped of the ball by Danny Care in the lead up to the English try and was extremely lucky to get away with the decision when he clearly knocked on the quick through in from Burgess. Besides Stirling doing what he does best the Australian backline did not look particularly incisive or inventive. The booing of the Giteau when he was taking penalty shots and at full time was pretty poor and widespread from where I was sitting in the North stand. I don't recall it being that bad last time I was at Twickenham. I think alot of it stemmed from the seeming eternity it take Giteau to take the kicks. I didn't have a stopwatch but I reckon he must average about 3 minutes a kick from start to finish. I wonder whether Danny Cipriani will be having nightmares about being mowed down by Cliff Palu. Not sure Cliffy's timing was precise enough. It will be interesting to see if Cipriani ships the ball on quickly next time Palu runs at him.