It was utter rubbish. Headlines that suggest anything else are risable. The referee was fine. The All Blacks were competent. The Wallabies were good in spots, and overall just rubbish. Simply put, they lack a consistent sense of urgency and it cost them dearly.
Among the ‘detached’ were several prominent examples, but with several exceptions the rest of the team was wandering close behind.
The 80 minute exception was Rocky Elsom who showed why he, not George Smith, Matt Giteau or any of the others often mentioned, should be captain. Now, not later.
The replacements Genia, Hynes and Palotu-Nau also showed why they belong in the run-on side.
After a flurry of aggressive play, the early points from penalties acted like tranquilizers and a fog settled in. By that time Giteau had already kicked the first of several of what has become his signature screw-up – a low kick into an opponent’s body.
The relief of seeing Baxter removed early was short lived when it became apparent that Alexander was not going to offer much of anything consistently around the park.
It was also becoming hard to overlook that Burgess’s incredibly poor judgment regarding when to get stuck in left us without a scrumhalf at critical moments – but, ironically not much worse off than when he was in position but dithering about with his picking up of the ball, soft passes, and time-wasting steps.
Both Barnes and O’Connor started well and provided some spark but finished early. After they left, the kickers all seemed obsessed with finding Sivivatu – a curiously counter intuitive strategy that they didn’t seem to notice wasn’t working.
To add detail to the comment the Wallabies were rubbish, by position I rate them as follows:
1. Robinson – 5/10 scrummaged OK; missed critical tackles; lacked intensity – no impact
2. Moore – 5/10 scrummaged OK; ran poorly with the ball from backs, spent too much time in backs and not enough in the tight; did not look for much work and it showed
3. Baxter – 2/10 useless and expensive in scrum; no impact – his last match?
4. Horwill – 5/10 provided someone for Sharpe to bind with – a journeyman effort, a pro was required
5. Sharpe – 8/10 up for the match; played well in set and loose; old but good on the day
6. Elsom – 8/10 rusty but committed. The match would have been gone before half without him
7. Smith –7/10 time is catching up. It also seems that captaincy weighs on him, no game breakers today
8. Brown – 4/10 that is 2 brainless yellow cards now and nothing to compensate for it
9. Burgess – 4/10 One good snipe toward the end did not make up for a generally lousy game. He thinks slowly, kicks aimlessly, runs sideways, passes delayed marshmallows, and frequently goes missing – where was he when Barnes/Sharpe nearly scored?
10. Giteau – 6/10 goal kicking aside, a very poor match. Kicking out of hand was ill-considered and ineffective. Not maturing as a 5/8. Comparisons to Carter are nonsense. Move to inside centre.
11. Mitchell – 4/10 kicked poorly and aimlessly, poor judgment created numerous problems, eg. non-catch of AB touch kick at the 12th minute
12. Barnes – 8/10 best back going into the half before being replaced
13. AAC – 7/10 fell off a few tackles, generally solid and useful, needs to play at 13 all of the time
14. Turner – 4/10 did not look for work or contribute much, another anonymous match
15. O’Connor – 7/10 Started well, took a knock and left early. He, Hynes and Ioane should be back three
16. Palotu-Nau – 6/10 far better in the tight and loose than Moore. Should have stayed after Moore’s first trip to BB
17. Alexander – 5/10 scrummaged competently, mostly but not completely missing in the loose
18. Mumm – 5/10 filled a spot, but made no impact
19. Pocock – 6/10 no mistakes, made nothing happen; no impact
20. Genia – 8/10 in a few minutes demonstrated that he has all the skills that Burgess lacks and intensity as well. Came close to pulling game out of his hat.
21. Cross – 6/1 journeyman performance. Not much opportunity. Did no harm.
22. Hynes – 8/10 worked hard, made an impact every minute he was on the pitch.
Coaches:
Just what do these guys think their jobs are? The selections are poor. The game plan seems to last about 20 minutes with no backup.
The mindset is soft and the team is about as intense as the U14 Bs. At this level the players should be able to do this well without coaches.
1. Deans – 4/10 needs to get a grip on his ‘professional’ players. No more Mr. nice guy. His job is on the line and both he and they need to feel it. They players are not supposed to have fun until they win. Anyone who left the pitch today without a frown should be flogged.
2. Williams – 2/10 how many forwards does he actually coach? They are not winning the collisions and when they do get the ball half of them think they are centres and slow everything down.
3. Graham – 2/10 defense isn’t just tackles. It is anticipating and getting into place for 80+ minutes. Too much of the time these players are watching and reacting – case in point the 77th minute confusion on the Wallabies 5m line and subsequent score.
This was a soft headed, self-inflicted loss. Based on my assessment (admittedly impressionistic) only about half of the Wallaby players deserved a paycheck. The coaching staff should be sued for fraud.
Today for the first time in my life I spent the last five minutes of a Wallaby match absolutely furious and actually screaming at the television.
Given the lack of urgency and general lackadaisical attitude toward every aspect of the match in the 2nd half it seemed inevitable that they would let it go – and they did.
Even looser
Guest
Pffffttttttttttt! Good one. Well spotted.
Where is Steve Merrick
Guest
Surely they could at least man up and not wear their tracksuits out on to the field - it is embarassing the routine these guys carry on with... every other side comes out fo the sheds ready to play but the Wallabies walk out looking like John Howards security detail...
BAS
Guest
Hey OJ on that note ruck decisions are supposed to go the way of the attacking side, how many went aginst the AB's while they were on attack I counted at least 4?
Terry Kidd
Guest
Bulldog, I am someone who does not rate Notso Sharpe and I have been doing it a long time. I have not just come out of the woodwork in your words. Sharpe's only redeeming feature has been his lineout play and in the last 2 tests even that has been sadly lacking. He is not worth his place in the team and should be dropped. He will not play the next RWC so we should be developing alternatives now.
Nick_KIA
Guest
You've got to be joking. That was the clearest penalty of the match. That and the one not awarded for Wallers not back 10 at the tap just prior to Cowan's disallowed try.
Darryl SA
Guest
Yep, we must change the laws to nullify South Africa's strengths, I agree. :-)
mcxd
Guest
Move over O'Neill. Sheek for ARU CEO !
Who Needs Melon
Guest
I can say it because just about every rugby commentator said the same thing before the match and the bookies had the ABs as favourites.
Edgo
Guest
Expatsin. "only history will show us who won and lost" followed by the wallabies wll end 0-6. Either you are a prophet or you need to think before you "contribute" to the discussion
Campbell Watts
Guest
Mellons how can you say " a game we were not expecting to win" What games are the wallabies going to win if not their home fixtures???? The trinations is won and lost by making sure of the home wins and sneaking an away win occasionally - it's all uphill if you're giving up on a home win!!
retired rucker
Guest
expat, I don't know who's whining but we didn't deserve to win that game and AB's are deserved winners so I'm not sure what all the vitriol is about. Thorne was completley spent, that doesn't indicate a walk in the park, at least he was a gracious winner!
ohtani's jacket
Guest
I thought about this, but there would be too many contentious decisions outside the 22. Deliberate ball killing would occur further out from the line, and you'd lose some of the rugby's character if goal kickers weren't forced to make difficult kicks from far out. If there were fewer penalties scored, there may not necessarily be more tries. The biggest issue right now is the breakdown. There has to be a way to give the attacking side a better chance of recycling possession and the opportunity for them to use their backs, because right now everything favours the side without the ball.
ExpatSin
Guest
Man, what a bunch of pathetic whiners you lot are. NZ where gritty and deserved the win. You could feel the momentum building as the game progressed. As for all your guys glorifying Elsom, give me a break. His intentional take of McCaw in the air in the first 30 seconds warranted a yellow card. Brown's was a close call. It’s the same old story for OZ, powder puff forwards with no backbone. The score line if anything flattered Oz. As for you ridiculous rating of SA at 10, NZ at 8 and Oz at 7. Grow up. History will only show who won and lost. At the moment OZ is 0-3. The season will end 0-6. What happens to you dumb ratings then. All you guys have spent the last year saying how good Giteau is. Maybe, maybe not (I think he is way overrated). Just promise me one thing; leave him at 10 for us. Yeehaaaaaaaa.
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
"14. Turner – 4/10 did not look for work or contribute much, another anonymous match" This is way too harsh. Most of the tackles on Sivivatu, especially in the second half, were executed by Turner. If a player makes no other contribution than to keep tackling the most dangerous broken-field runner in world rugby, he's still had a valuable match. Just ask the Auckland/Blues wingers in the matches in which Sivivatu has run in 5 tries against them. Personally I had no idea that Turner could tackle this well.
Hoy
Roar Guru
How about no kicks for penalty goals until in the 22. Then from say 30 out, they must go for the line, or tap and go. Simple, doesn't change too much structure of the game. Just makes teams keep the ball and use it.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
I actually watched the Newlands yellow card when I was messing around on youtube earlier and I don't see how anything can think he had rights to that ball.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
They can't get the bonus point for scoring 4, how are they going to score 8? Right now 2 is a struggle. Here's a novel idea -- ruck decisions go the way of the attacking side.
Knives Out
Guest
Not necessarily. Look what happened in the 1st test. The British forwards were powerfully beaten back until the 50th minute but prior to that the Lions still ran the ball whenever possible, and made in-roads too, hence the two disallowed tries. This Wallaby side has never really shown a desire to take an opposition backline on.
Darryl SA
Guest
And that's because the B&I Lions specifically selected a forward pack that could take on the Springboks up front. Once they nullified that area of dominance, it was game on. It's like a tennis match where one player has a terrific first serve. He'll keep using that area to dominate until the other player learns how to return serve. Then he is forced to improve other aspects of his game. All we're seeing right now is that SA has a very good first serve. Aus/NZ will soon figure out a way to counter it, then SA will have to ask their backline players to come to training sessions again and relearn how to run with the ball. And so the cycle continues.
Ben C
Guest
The best exponents of running rugby that I have seen this year were the B&I Lions. None of the SH teams have comes close to the quality of backline play seen in the Lions matches, particularly the third match.