New Zealand’s Dan Carter, right, is tackled by Australia’s Nathan Sharpe during the Bledisloe Cup rugby match in Sydney, Australia, Saturday, Aug. 22, 2009. New Zealand won the match 19-18 and retain the Bledisloe Cup.(AP Photo/Rob Griffith)
What happened? Even as hard-bitten a critic as Knives Out found reason to wager some of his hard-earned on Australia winning the 2009 Tri-Nations. Yet here we are, with three losses out of three, and having to swallow an unpalatable Bledisloe Cup loss in Sydney.
Make no mistake, this was a very bad loss.
Yes, New Zealand were the better team on the night, but Australia had so much in its favour that it should have been able to prevail.
To wit …
Firstly, the match was at Sydney’s Olympic Stadium, the closest thing that the Wallabies have to a fortress, having been the scene of 6 wins from 9 previous encounters over the All Blacks.
Secondly, this is not a great New Zealand side.
Yes, they were vastly improved by the return of the one and only DC, but that does not change that they have been a team in disarray for most of this season.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the referee, Jonathan Kaplan, usually the foe of Australian teams, suddenly became a 16th Wallaby player, and probably the best one on the field.
Right from the kickoff, when Kaplan might easily have sinbinned Rocky Elsom for taking out Richie McCaw in the air (have a look at the replay and tell me that you honestly think Elsom was going for the ball), the whistleblower consistently looked favourably on Australia’s fortunes.
Despite all these advantages, the Wallabies still lost.
The reason is easily stated but hard to fix: many of the players are simply not good enough, and there are no alternatives who are any better.
To appreciate this, it is vital to understand that rugby, as it is currently played and refereed, is primarily a sport about constancy of execution of skills under pressure.
Some sports are different to this, for example Dani Samuels and Steve Hooker only had to produce one moment of excellence to become world champions last weekend (incidentally, this exemplifies my theory that no matter how bad it seems, there is always something very positive being achieved in Australian sport).
But as Dan Carter illustrates par excellence, rugby is about individuals getting it right over and over again, as opposed to doing something brilliant one moment and then something awful the next.
One might call this the Shane Warne principle: his best balls were no better than Stuart MacGill’s best balls, but what made Warne a much better bowler is that he got it right over and over again, bowling barely any trash at all, whereas the good SCG would invariably bowl one or two four-balls per over.
As Warne wrote during the recent Ashes series, a bowler’s success is based on his stock deliveries.
I do not wish to make Drew Mitchell a scapegoat for last Saturday night, but let me use him to illustrate the above in a rugby context.
There is no doubt that Mitchell has some outstanding qualities: his pace, his swerve, his uncanny nose for the tryline. Often he is brilliant. But he also makes regular mistakes in his execution of skills.
Let’s look at the 77th minute last Saturday night. With Australia leading 18-16, Mitchell found himself fielding a New Zealand kick 40 m out from his own tryline.
He surveyed his options, and decided to kick back. The result? Despite not being under any great pressure, he overcooked the kick, the ball went dead, and so New Zealand received a scrum feed in good field position.
Had Mitchell unfurled a better kick, we’d probably be rejoicing in an Australian victory.
But wait, there’s more. From the ensuing New Zealand scrum, Dan Carter produced a perfectly weighted kick (cf. Mitchell’s). Mitchell found himself having to field it right in the corner.
Now under a lot of pressure, he had to make a split-second decision about whether or not to put the ball out immediately but in poor field position.
He decided on the riskier option of trying to improve his position so that the could kick the ball out further downfield. The venture failed: Australia was tackled with the ball, a penalty was conceded, and the match lost.
Incidentally, all the Tuqiri bashers might care to ponder whether Lote would have failed as Mitchell did in both these instances.
Yes, Tuqiri had a lot of limitations, but one of his great strengths was that no matter how much pressure he was under, he could take a tackle and recycle possession. This enabled him to have a very low error rate, even though he was limited in his skills.
Australia has players like Mitchell in many positions on the park, and in the end the errors add up, outweighing the moments of excellence.
Luke Burgess is one of the most obvious and most criticized of these players.
Perhaps I have become so inured to his poor passing that I do not notice it any more, but I actually thought he had one of his better games of the season on Saturday night.
Nevertheless Matt Giteau’s ongoing struggles – I’ll be honest, I have been a champion of his cause but there is no point trying to deny that he has been a major disappointment this series – must at least in part be due to erratic service from his halfback.
But is there anyone better?
Call me a pessimist, but I struggle to understand the unbridled enthusiasm of many Roar readers for Will Genia. He’s had only a handful of starting games for the pathetically performing Queensland team, and yet somehow people are convinced he will solve Wallaby problems at halfback.
What is the sustained evidence that I am missing here?
Let’s also consider no. 8. Wycliff Palu had to be dropped, but what did we get from Richard Brown in his place? Let’s put it this way, Brown was at his most visible when he was in the sin bin, and for the rest of the match it was as if Australia still only had 7 forwards on the field.
But what other options does Deans have at no. 8? Does he start Smith there and bring in Pocock to start at 7? (Incidentally, it was interesting to hear last week that Laurie Mains – an excellent judge of rugby talent – rates Pocock extremely highly.)
Or does Deans do something wild like give Hoiles another go?
And what about Al Baxter?
The easy version of events is that he got humiliated again. But why does it happen only against Tony Woodcock? If Baxter is such a soft touch, how is it that he has stood up against South Africa and England in recent times, and how is it that he is always a pillar of strength for NSW?
So there you have it. I would urge people to judge rugby players not on their best moments, but on all their moments.
We have to accept that for most Wallabies, both current and wannabe, the resulting judgements are not flattering.
This all reminds me of a favourite story, about St Teresa of Avila. It goes that a mother was dropping off her daughter to become a novice.
“Is she smart?” asked the great woman.
“She’s very holy” replied the mother.
“I can make her devout,” snapped the saint, “but I can’t make her intelligent.”
The good news is that Robbie Deans understands this, which is why he personally spends hours and hours with individuals doing skills drills.
But what Deans cannot do is make individuals more naturally talented.
Both natural talent of the highest order and hours and hours of practice are needed to produce a player who is not just brilliant on occasions but who makes the right decisions and who successfully executes his skills over and over again.
No team will have 15 such players, but to beat the All Blacks and Springboks regularly, certainly Australia needs more such players than it currently has.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
Greg really good article, and great insights for those with a limited knowledge of the game.
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
Sheek, I agree Campo is a very interesting case to consider, how would he go in today's rugby with its emphasis on low error rate? I don't know. There are few players like Campo today - Giteau to some extent (in a S14 game he very often does many brilliant things while also making some clangers, e.g. kicks out on the full), perhaps Shane Williams to some extent too. But these are "mini-Campos" at the most. Benji Marshall is the closest I can think of to a modern-day Campo (in terms of amazing brilliance and basic mistakes all mixed together in the one match), but he's in a different code. Carlos Spencer of recent rugby times also comes to mind. My own suspicion is that a player of Campo's amazing natural talent and skill would today be coached towards a low-error game, so he wouldn't express himself as Campo did. James O'Connor may well turn into an example of this. One also needs to be straight that players like Drew Mitchell - the ones my article is really about - are no Campos. They make errors and their good acts are not nearly as brilliant as Campo's.
Sam Taulelei
Guest
Chris Perhaps this is a good omen indeed and a clear message to the ARU marketing team to switch their principal sponsor from Qantas to Champ, it might instil more self belief and get the boys playing like one.
Chris
Guest
For those of you who are interested, I put the paper down last night and this morning the puppy had avoided the articles on the Wallabies. I think its an omen... The Wallabies are going to win. He is only 12 weeks old but wise beyond his 'years'. So really the destiny of our National Team has nothing to do with the skill of the players or the coaching staff, our fortune is determine by the whim of my puppy's bowels.
JK
Guest
Bring back Waltzing Matilda! Everyone hated it but hey maybe it stirred something in the boy's
Darryl SA
Guest
I have to agree, a very good article Greg. As a Saffer it has been quite interesting reading Aus supporters having a go at the Wallabies. I personally feel that they have not played badly at all and it is simply a few key positions letting them down at the moment. Once those pieces of the puzzle fall into place, they'll be world beaters again. Might even happen this weekend. As they say in sport, a team is only as good as their last game, and I for one hope the Boks don't rest on their kick and chase laurels. In this age of professionalism with dedicated staff working on analysing opponents and how to counter their tactics, I wouldn't be surprised if both Deans and Henry are waiting for their revenge with some well designed counter. Hopefully the Bok media line of "we won't change our style" is just that - a line - and that they have backup plans. But until we see the Bok backline actually prove they can run with the ball, I will remain nervous about the outcome of this Tri Nations.
Who Needs Melon
Guest
Chris, Love the puppy story. You're spot on. Sometimes I feel like ripping such articles out of the paper and using them in a similar manner myself.
Frank
Guest
Really enjoyable and accurate article. If Giteau's target is to kick the ball low, up the middle of the field, and into the arms of the fullback on the 2nd bounce, then I think that he's a great kick. If that's not his target, then watch any Rugby League game on any weekend to see how it's done. We are failing in the fundamentals. Nothing more nor less. We haven't had a running Wallabies game for some time now. We no longer play with the ball in hand.
Michael Lee
Guest
Greg Russell take a bow, great article, great analysis. TELLING IT THE WAY IT IS
circus
Guest
I think Giteau has looked uninterested since he's had to play for probably the worst worst half back in terms of passing skills that has ever played for for Australia. From Cyril Burke, to Catchpole, to Hipwell (the best of the them all) to Farr-Jones,to Gregan, Australia has has always had fantastic half backs who have spent a long time in the Wallaby jumper. If he were a stronger character (a la Mark Ella) I'm sure Giteau would have told Deans that he will no longer put up with the service from Burgess (which is of 4th grade standard). English football sides are full of strikers with lots of ego but they make the point - I'm paid a lot of money to score goals but I won't put up with the crap service that is provided to me. Giteau is the highest paid Australian player - he should demand that Burgess be dropped for Genia, Valentine, Lucas etc. - someome who can pass the ball perfectly in front of him 99 times out of a 100. That is what a half back is supposed to do -not kick terrible box kicks and harbour bridge passes. If that happened we might finally see some some good running rugby from Australia's backs ,which has been so sadly lacking this year (and last year). .
boomer
Guest
There is a lack of mongrel in the side, particularly in the forwards. Overall, the team is clearly dedicated and I feel they're more skillful than they are given credit for, but where are the one percenters? Why don't they commit to the ruck and maul? Where's the hate in the pack? The pigs just don't seem to work all that well together. Why is that?
boomer
Guest
A Classic. Two thumbs up
Eagle
Guest
There is a very strong correlation between Super 14 and Tri Nations. The Crusaders have been strong in the Super 14 over the years and consequently so have the All Blacks. This year the Bulls developed into the top team and South Africa so far leads the Tri Nations. Based on Super 14 form the Wallabies where in trouble before a single Tri Nations game was played. Also the draw and travel has always been a factor in the Tri Nations. For years Australia and New Zealand have been benefiting from the fact that only one third of their matches are played on the other side of the world. And neither team have a wonderful record in SA. But this year SA started with 3 in a row at home. There is another factor in the Tri nations and that is home ground advantage. Teams are very likely to win their home games - you seem to forget that Australia could easily have won on Saturday and lost their home game by a single point. They now have two home games and the much vaunted South African support in Perth is in my experience almost without exception like a cloud that promises rain and on the day it turns into mist. Settled combinations is another factor. There are not really enough of that yet in this Robbie Deans team. It will take a wee while, but 2011 is still some way off. Compare the Springboks. With some ongoing experimentation the combinations are solidly settled. I do not think that the Wallabies have a talent problem. I can mention a number of highly talented Wallabies, but I do think that for all the critisism that the Springboks do not "play any rugby", there is just a bit more rugby in the Springbok team than what detractors want to admit. So all in all the bottomline is I disagree with Greg about the talent thing, and I would say to the puppy that Chris bought that he is a very harsh judge indeed.
Bluey
Guest
Such poosyfooting around an issue I have never seen ! Wake up the lot of ya, when the Wallabies have hard nuts in the pack they generally win. John Eales was a hard nut, beleive it or not. But just as importanlty, Finnane, Price, Shaw, Codey, Spider Maclean, Giffin, Finegan et al , all played in successful eras. For god sake Al Baxter !! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wake up, he was a powder puf, never dominated his oponent and he was were it starts - up front. That Greg fella having the temerity to critisise Burgess, Brown etc yet attempt to aplogise for Baxter - he's kiddin ! and shows the worst of Aussie Rugby, attitudes like his are the reason we are where we are.
Chris
Guest
Great article Greg, I’m about to lower the tone. I read online that Giteau says he is determined to lift his game for this weekend. I really hope the Wallabies win in Perth but there is a sense of deja vu. Allow me to digress for a second. I have just got a puppy and every night I lay our newspaper so he doesn't mess up the house. The papers I have go back a few weeks and as I lay them down I get to read old articles... Before Bledisloe 1, the Wallabies were favourite. They'd learnt from the pain of tight loses of the year before and were primed to beat the All Blacks. The next night I put down the paper post Bledisloe 1. The Wallabies ‘let themselves down, they need to toughen up’. A few days later, down goes the newspaper for the lead up to the South African game... once again the Wallabies talk themselves up, "they've learnt from Bledisloe 1 and they need to step up and be counted". The next night, "the one they got away, they need to toughen up"... and the same can be said for the papers pre and post Bledisloe 2 and now the game against SA in Perth. God I hope we win but I'm amused, as much as we lambast and criticise the Wallabies performance, my 12 week old puppy says what we can't say on this post... every morning when I go in to see him... he literally thinks they are playing crap.
OldManEmu
Guest
Probably the best article I have read on Rugby on The Roar Greg - congratulations. I might well be crucified for this but I'll do it anyway. There is a joke about a Jesuit priest being the little known forth wise man at the birth of Jesus Christ. As the three better known wise men heaped gifts and blessing on the baby Jesus, the Jesuit priest sidled up to Joseph and whispered in his ear "So where is the kid going to school?" This joke is for me a great metaphor for Australian Rugby presently, how we have abandoned that which is important for that which is trivial, and why until we start educating players at a young age in the basics of the game - WE ARE FUCKED. Walla Rugby should be blown up -it is a farce. Rugby League is a much better game for youngsters to learn the basic skills and toughness.
Brett McKay
Expert
Greg, this is an outstanding piece, great work..
Daniel
Guest
i think SANZAR must evict the aussies from the tri-nations and have them compete in the Six Nations (Northern Hemisphere) competition.<aybe they'll feature there. abysmal team. Deans go back to NZ and help Henry to coach the AB's
Armchair-critic
Roar Pro
I agree with regard to how they should play but i dont know if they are capable of it we rarely saw that sort of play during the S14 and i believe their lack of fitness, skills and confidence to attack is what prohibits this current group from playing expansively. how many times have we squandered a lead in the final 20 mins, it is becoming painfully inevitable
stuff happens
Guest
V. good article Greg and I also agree with Sheek.I've just seen the teams for Sat and there's no comparison frankly. Ah well, I'm off for a glass of red...