1984 Grand Slam will be hard for Wallabies to match

For anyone interested. Here a link to the Invictus trailer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqKjVo-9qso . Apart from Morgan Freeman's accent being a bit off it looks very good.

"Pearse’s biggest problem was considered to be a lack of size" Fair enough, Greg - he was several inches taller than me (at 6') when I met him but a long streak of pelican's ... . Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Pearce of similar build to your Mrrrry Muxtd? (whose commentary I enjoy but who my NZ mates over here, with whom I enjoy the Great Game, do not rate highly - they are bloody hard markers these blokes! - although two were both provincial rep backs so they don't know much about Rugby)

Christ Sheek that is bloody depressing! I hope you are wrong but suspect you are right.

Stillmissit, The answer is simple - politics. There aren't that many positions available in Australian rugby for coaching or administration. Too often it goes to mates. Topo is outspoken & forthright, too easily treads on toes. I wonder why the current Wallabies & super teams are so bland, so one-dimensional? Is it because their coaches, so desperate to hang onto the few well-paid coaching positions available, have removed all innovation, enterprise & individualism out of the Australian game?????

stillmissit, Thanks for responding to my post. I do tend to rabble on. I think we can agree to disagree on a few things, however there were one or two things I disagreed with. Watch the Sydney Test from 2008 and how poorly the All Blacks played. Then watch the Auckland Test and watch what a difference McCaw makes. It's clear the All Blacks are a worse side without him - there's a good margin there. It's not a case of McCaw being clearly better than Smith because he's in a good side, it's a case of McCaw making the All Blacks a better side. Last year's game in Auckland, to me, cemented McCaw as one of the greatest ever. I do agree that McCaw tends to get away with more than Smith. This year in Auckland McCaw did one of the most blatantly obvious infringements you'll ever see when the Aussies tried to counter attack from fullback. Instead Australia got pinged for holding on. Even most New Zealanders I talk to, who would usually defend Richie in an instant such as that, admitted McCaw got away with murder there. It's interesting that you mention that Poidevin perhaps hasn't saved as many games for Australia as Smith has, becauyse I've had a mind for quite a while to write a piece listing the games Australia needed Poidevin the most. Off the top of my head I'd say: - Against New Zealand in 1982 (2nd Test) Poidevin, Roche, Lucas, are tackling like demons possessed. There's 10 minutes to go, Australia are narrowly defending their lead. The Australian backrow tackle better than I have ever seen, and make plenty of last gasp tackles to avoid overlaps. Mark Ella and Peter Grigg also made such huge tackles in that game. - Against New Zealand in 1988 (2nd Test) The famous drawn Test. This would be the only game New Zealand didn't win from 1987-1989. The worst part of this Test is I think Australia should have won it. But anyway, the New Zealanders were ambushed by the ferocity of the Australian forwards in the first half, with Poidevin the best player. I would actually go so far to say that the Aussie backrow outplayed the Blacks in that famous first half, despite Michael Jones scoring a controversial try. Shelford didn't get into the game. - Against Ireland in 1991 (World Cup semi final) Before caling his infamous cut-two-loop, Michael Lynagh called a move which brought Campo towards the forwards. Unfortunately there was an Irish player who nearly ripped the ball of Campo. Poidevin latched onto the ball and tried to rip it away, but couldn't. But because Campese and Poidevin held onto the ball and Simon drove forward, Australia got the scrum feed. As history shows, Australia won the game off the next play. As Greg Growden once said, Australia needed Poidevin's rat-cunning to win the world cup! In fact a week later the play broke down in the Aussie backline, Poidevin did the clean-up work extremely well, Lynagh got the ball, chip-kicked, and Campo did his famous blind pass. It's easy to look at Campo's moment of genius and forget there was a forward who did something pretty important beforehand. - Against New Zealand in 1991 (1st Test) I was watching this the other day. The Aussies were worried about the return of Michael Jones. Poidevin came up against him and achieved parity. He didn't beat him or outplay him, but Jones showed no marked dominance on the game (which Australia won 21-12). This game shows the real value of Poidevin. He was someone who could achieve parity with a lot of better players, simply because he was more competitive than them. And while Poidevin wasn't the player Shelford was, he could achieve parity with a lot of fine players. There used to be a video on youtube dedicated with Buck Shelford where he's running over Wallaby after Wallaby (I think it was the first Test of 1988), and then he came up against Poidevin and Poido cut him down. Poidevin couldn't match Buck for physicality, but he could match him for competitiveness. But despite all that said, your reasons for finding Smith a better player are valid and really it just comes down to a difference of opinion. Both have won ane endless amount of games for Australia.

Sheek - I was only thinking of Giteau as an I/C and I think he would have replaced Lynagh although Michael Lynagh got better the longer he played. Mortlock for Slack, yes every time although Slack was a great captain. Elsom and Smith over Codey and Poidevan based on natural skills and a similar workrate to Poido and Codey. I was watching some shorts of the 84 games yesterday and Poido bombed a sitter where he only had to slip the pass. His speed and aggression were his big things.

Further to the first paragraph (which is spot on), I would just like to remind people that Sharpe missed the last three tests of the voting period (i.e., Australia's last 3 tests of the 2009 Trinations). Had he played in these tests and polled at the same rate as in the rest of the voting period, he would have headed the vote tally. I think it's an extraordinarily dangerous and arrogant game to start playing to suggest that players don't have any real idea about who the best players on the field are.

I agree that G Smith and R Price stand out by head and shoulders as Australian 7s, but as time goes on Smith because less like Price and McCaw becomes more. McCaw played a few matches for Canterbury this season at 8, and he was almost a reincarnation of Price. I'm hoping that the All Black selectors were too distracted to notice this. Far from being "almost 6 and a half foot", Pearse's biggest problem was considered to be a lack of size. Re Mick Mathers, here's a true story about him. One year - it must have been around 1980 - he won the Sydney Morning Herald's best-and-fairest award in Sydney grade rugby, even though he played the whole season with a buggered knee. When quizzed by a Herald reporter about how he had managed to play so well, Mathers answered "My knee injury meant I had to run straight and I couldn't move to the side. So when I ran into a ruck, I had to hit it hard and straight. Similarly when I lined up a tackle or carried the ball." Not such a complicated game, is it.

That Australian team of 1981/82 probably did Ireland a favour. Although the match in Dublin was the only test of the four it won, I remember reading that Mark Loane, who had been the skipper I think, said that the toughest two tests they had to play were against Ireland and England, simply because those two teams had the best forwards. Australia's victory in Dublin was the seventh consecutive international that Ireland had lost. If memory serves, that was a record poor run of form at the time. Although Ireland had whitewashed Australia in a test series in 1979 it had had a 50/50 record the following season and had lost all four Five Nations games in 1981. A two test defeat on tour to South Africa in mid 1981 was compounded by the defeat to Australia in Dublin. Something had to change. What had happened in 1981 was that Ireland had tried to square the circle of accommodating its two outstanding out halves, Ollie Campbell and Tony Ward, born within a few weeks of each other, on the same team. Ward had been sensationally dropped in favour of Campbell on the Australian tour and kept off the team in 1980. In 1981 he was back playing at fly half while Campbell moved into the centre. All four matches were lost by tight margins. Away to Scotland and Wales, there was only a point in each game. The home defeats to France and England were both Campbell's fault. In each case he took a quick and ill advised deep drop out while Ireland were leading and sent the ball straight into the hands of a fast backline who could run it back and outpace the Irish defence. In Wales, Ward had played a memorable match creating two dazzling tries out of nothing yet in one of the few occasions in which a team outscoring the opposition by two tries still lost, Ireland were beaten 9-8 with neither of the two extravagant kicking talents managing a single score from the boot. In the match against Australia, Ireland playing with Ward tried a running game but just did not have the backs to play such a style effectively. For the Five Nations starting a few weeks later, they dropped Ward, brought back Campbell and told him on no account to pass the ball to his back line. It worked a treat. Running things on his own Ireland scored their first Triple Crown win in 33 years, back in the days when that was considered important. Maybe history will repeat itself this year. Although Ireland are reiging Grand Slam champions, much of the team is creaking on very elderly legs and there are a slew of young guns chomping at the bit for their chance. Especially in the front row and at out half. Whatever about the crunch game with South Africa, a heavy defeat to an unheralded Australian team -- we've noticed that the Tri Nations didn't go so well this year--could see a clear out of some famous old heads. If you must win, at least do us the favour of exposing what needs to be exposed. :)

Bozo - I wonder what makes us so arrogant that we don't want to use the best we have had? I believe NZ and SA don't do this, wonder why we ignore our past. Topo is not the only example I have heard of but must be the worst. There are a couple of ex great Wallabies who have put their hand up to help and been ignored in the last 8 dark years. Even if you believe that their experience is so 'old hat' the passion and commitment would come through and at least set the bar the guys are aiming at. Maybe the coaches are worried about their jobs. Small thinking brings small results!

Sheek - Topo also said that the one person who helped him when he was down to his last dollar and without enough money to put a bond on a flat and some serious bils to pay was Alan Jones. Topo said of Alan "He is the one person who has stood by me through thick and thin" or words to that effect. I am not a great fan of Alan Jones apart from his early Wallaby coaching years but this endorsement had me nodding my head.

Gidday Dublin Dave, What this Aussie meant was that the 1981 team had a better backline & probably a better backrow as well. But it was woefully inadequate in the tight-five, lacking both size in height & weight, & more importantly, technique. Therefore, the 1981 team overall, wasn't as good as the 1984 team. Gut gee, they had some mighty players. For the record, players chosen in both 1981 & 84 were - R.Gould, P.Grigg, B.Moon, A.Slack, M.Hawker, M.Ella, P.Cox (a quality backline), S.Poidevin, C.Roche & S.Williams.

Frank, I can confirm Stillmissit's story since I have also met Topo several times, socially even, & can confirm his story, every word of it. Topo said to me on more than one occassion, that when he stopped playing, the ARU never gave him another thought. Now he is involved in another project very personal to him, & the sadness is rugby has probably lost him. Australian rugby, & especially the ARU, can be very dumb at times.

Kick to Kick, Comparisons are not an exact science, & in any case, hardly silly. A player or team that dominated his own era is the key. Besides, the great Don Bradman argued, "A champion in one era is a champion in any era". You did maths at school, I'm sure - find the common demoninator. Then it makes it easier to compare players & teams from different eras.

Missit, Interesting exchange with Frank. Agree Elsom & Smith as a pair are better than Codey & Poidevin, but not by much. Also agree with frank, that Poido's supreme comptitiveness makes it difficult to ignore him. I played against Poido at school & he carved us up. I played against codey at Colts & off the field, was a true delight. On the field awesomely tough. On reflection, I would go with Poido & Codes. They were brutally tough, moreso than Elsom & Smith. You also mentioned Giteau & Mortlock at his best making a combined team? Who would Gits replace? Certainly not Ella, & neither Lynagh. Gits is over-blown hype, IMHO. Mortlock for Slack? In straight ability, perhaps. But Slack had wondeful, inclusive skills.

I didn't see the 1984 Wallabies at the time. I was in the middle of my "wander round the nether regions of Europe and the Middle East while wondering what to do with the next part of your life" phase, and this was back in the days before satellite TV. However, I distinctly remember being badgered in the Hofbrauhas Beer Keller in Munich by a triumphant Australian sports fan eager to discuss how "our blokes had stuffed you lot at the Union" earlier in the season. I also distinctly remember that he said "but the 1981 team (which had lost two out of four tests if memory serves) was better." Was he right? Only possible person able to do a comparison of one historical team with respect to another is the Great Sheek so I'll leave him to it. :) But it does seem to suggest that the past is always viewed via rose tinted spectacles.

stillmissit - sorry, I thought you were talking about Smith's talents - passing, kicking etc. I'm a great admirer of Smith as a player, but personally, I wish he'd concentrate on his role as a blind side and leave the flash to the hair tint brigade. I was also an admirer of Pearce's skills, and I still miss his analysis in the commentary box.

Accurate, Frank and well recorded. And Australian Rugby ought to knight the bloke for what he did with that team, and the legacy won from its achievements. I was a "retain Dywer - who is this upstart" man at the time, and I was wrong. I do recall what stillmissit says (below) of Topo's entry to club rugby in Sydney. As to him not being called on to assist (which he could - his passion and well earned arrogance would be a revelation to 'em. I do recall he was crook a couple of years back) I fear the Australian front row would believe he has nothing of value to offer - a bit like Giteau's over-baked idea of his own importance, reportedly sooking over not being named vice captain and about potentially losing "his" position as an inept first five. I recall Deans telling them mid year that their rare good fortune at being there could be all over so quickly and it seems that one wasn't listening. And therein lies the starkest of distinctions between Jones' / Slack's Wallabies and this lot - attitude and real, not expressed by press release, determination. The 1984 blokes had a sight more talent, too - both patent and latent. The current lot cannot stand in the same room as them. I read with interest the assessment of Poedivin, above. There is not one current Wallaby that has his fierce resolve and capacity to do something with it. If these well paid tourists manage to put together 3 or 4 successful instances of pass, catch, pass, catch, pass, catch, make some ground, retain the ball and repeat the above - I will say they have demonstrated some improvement over this year's feeble efforts. Suggestion of a grand slam is fanciful and unjustifiable on the facts.

You mention Pearce from that period - Mick Mathers and Bird Tuynman were also about then. Both Pearce and Mathers had a few games for Australia and I recall a couple of virtuoso performances from Pearce - almost 6 and a half foot, ran well and was a fine tackler. Mathers was tough and skilled - he went on to become a stalwart of Beecroft Juniors with, I think, Dennis Tutty. Bird, usually at No 8, was a powerful bloke who always played for the whole game - a bit like Poedevin in that regard. Bird and Mathers were from the Mighty Woods, therefore I recall them as the best ever in their positions in the world, for all time. Of course.

Too right! Though you'd have to assume it wasn't the first choice test team playing.