What can explain the cataclysmic loss to Scotland this weekend? How could a team which last year looked in better shape to challenge for the World Cup than anyone else be reduced to a stumbling wreck, lacking direction, quality and the faintest glimmer of confidence?
With strange results the causes are strange and complex, and this is naturally case here.
It starts with the man at the top.
John O’Neill decided on the basis of some positive results last year, that it would be safe to lose a player or two in the interests of cost-cutting and marking his position of strength on the players, as the national resources were good enough to maintain the team’s competitiveness.
He therefore allowed Dan Vickerman to feel undervalued and leave, refused to assist the NSW Waratahs in the recruitment of Karmichael Hunt, fired Lote Tuqiri, allowed the Waratahs to bench Timana Tahu while paying him a huge salary and thus frustrating him into abandoning the sport, and was unwilling to pay Hugh Mcmenniman a little more in order to prevent him moving to Japan.
O’Neill’s calculation was the following: it’s highly important to show players that we will not allow them to make excessive financial demands (Vickerman, Hunt, Mcmenniman), or to behave badly in a way disrespectful to ARU authority. The playing resources of Australia are strong enough for the Wallabies to be competitive even if we lose a few players.
That explains O’Neill’s part, but why did Robbie Deans go along with this? Why didn’t he protest at the cavalier disregard of precious high quality players?
The answer is that Robbie Deans is a New Zealander, an ex-All Black whose last international coaching job was with the All Blacks. Blessed with an incomparable supply of talent, the All Blacks can simply lose a few players here and there and still trump the opposition.
Deans seems not to have realised yet that Australia does not contain the same abundant riches. As a result of this, the All Blacks are able to demand iron discipline and take an authoritarian stance towards their players, as if one or two leave there are several equally good possibilities to take their place.
This perhaps explains Deans own authoritarian streak, his cheerful collusion in Tuqiri’s sacking and philosophical indifference to Tahu’s departure. He comes from an environment where the playing weaponery is unlimited and the mindset that of a conquering army: the thinly supplied guerrilla mentality of the Wallabies is something he has yet to adapt to.
To add to the loss of quality in the side, the firing of Tuqiri devastated the team’s harmony and buzzing attitude.
So the Tri-nations began and the Wallabies, lacking all the energy and positive freshness of the year before because one of their senior player had just been summarily fired, slipped to a series of heavy losses.
Performances were still committed but lacked energy and in the end nothing could hide the fundamental inferiority of the playing group to their opponents. O’Neill’s five squandered players were absent where they were most needed, and the slide began to take speed.
With continued losses confidence began to fall away as well as energy, and to top it all, key players such as Stirling Mortlock began to get injured. Although towards the end of the Tri-nations a growth in confidence began to emerge, it was not enough and the repeated battering from the media and even the coach began to wear on the team’s ruined sense of its own value.
Without Tuqiri, Vickerman, Mcmenniman and Tahu the Wallabies are just too short of real talent.
Now the culmination of this descent has been reached. The Wallabies confidence is crushed. For whole epochs in rugby terms they camped on the English and Scottish lines, failing to score due to nothing more than a terror of failure.
Lote Tuqiri stands on the sidelines as a TV pundit watching Drew Mitchell and Peter Hynes, two wings of vastly inferior talent, taken down quickly by feeble Scottish counterparts whenever they touch the ball.
Ryan Cross with endless possession makes minor inroads where Timana Tahu would have wreaked havoc.
Dan Vickerman and Hugh Mcmenniman’s absence leave the Wallabies packs unable to out muscle a second-rate if large Scottish outfit as well as incapable of line-out dominance.
The worst thing however is that after a series of disastrous losses and scything internal disruption, the team as a whole has lost all bluster, inner strength and self-belief.
O’Neill’s terrible plot has run its course and the Wallabies sink to the most dreadful loss conceivable.
What next? How can Australia possibly recover from this?
The only answer is the following: players, players, players. Get the old ones back, get in new ones.
Watching Tuqiri on the sidelines couldn’t help prompt the following thought: is it possible to imagine the Wallabies losing to Scotland with him on the field?
Derm
Roar Guru
I thought Matt Giteau was the gravamen - going by what I've read so far.
Knives Out
Guest
That's certainly debatable, but given that the NZ pack fielded such callow players as Owen Franks and Ross then there is no long-term issue. It seems easy to forget that Ali Williams was injured, and now all of a sudden Graham Henry will have Thorn, Jack, Williams, Donnelly, Boric and Ross competing for the second row berths next season. If you add to that the competition for places in other positions 2: Hore/Mealamu, 3: Tialata/Franks/Afoa, 6: Thomson/Kaino and 8 :Read/So'oialo, then it becomes clear that NZ has an excellent forward platform. Conversely, the SA pack has been badly shown up since the 3N. Prior to Henry's arrival the NZ forward pack was mediocre at best. Henry reversed that trend and he looks to be doing the same thing again.
Firestarter Bob
Guest
The breakdown is the gravamen of rugby.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Campbell yes I do think they played with passion which is why they were able to compete at all for so long with a New Zealand outfit boasting far superior players. By the end their confidence and hope were finished, their bodies exhausted, and so they collapsed. You can't really call Tuqiri a league player: he's been playing union for 6 years and has 67 caps by now! I think his form was a temporary loss and would have returned. Tahu I think should have been in the Waratahs and when they finally did give him a run was superb. I also think he would have done better than Ryan Cross in the last few matches. I'm not pro-league or a fan of it by the way: it's just a handy source of players. The Wallabies do have a league player at the moment: Ryan Cross. Surely Timana Tahu would have done better than him?
Campbell Watts
Guest
KPM So the capitulation in Wellington showed “huge passion and determination” did it? Yes they’re now missing Sharpy, Mortlock, Barnes – some very experienced players, but I will not accept that the league players you are flogging on about were the solution to the present problems! Tahu wasn’t getting played because his Tah’s coach didn’t think he was as good as the guys getting the 12 and 13 jerseys – simple as that. His chances to shine when he got a spot he blew generally. He never adjusted to the game and his mental ticker dropped because of it. Tuqiri’s form had slumped so low he wasn’t worth the money they were being forced to pay him – so good on JON for getting rid of him – think of all the extra cash the ARU now have to secure the new emerging talent, not some 30-something old war horse with an attitude problem. Bringing in league players is not the solution! Even as a stop-gap measure! It's cutting your nose off to spite your face.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Thanks Greg, and your word 'gravamen' sounds somehow like a description of the Wallabies at the moment. I actually think that the Wallabies 'passion' has undergone two phases this year: the first, when it was muted due to serious internal disruption resulting from that sacking, the second, when it was high but damaged by a loss of confidence after all those losses on the field. I think overall they've played with tremendous passion and resilience, and it's unfotunate to watch them trying as hard as they can but jittery and uncertain because of destroyed self-belief (and limited by their talent). It all comes down to how much money the ARU has to spend on players for the Wallabies. If there really is so little, then the firing of Tuqiri, the loss of Tahu, the non-recruitment of Hunt and the non-maintenance of Mcmeniman make some financial sense. However, is it possibly the case that O'Neill was simply unaware how much money the financial turnaround he achieved created? It seems that he was still assuming the ARU were in the desperate financial position he inherited upon arrival, when in fact they had enough money to keep and splash out on a few players. Maybe the global economic crisis frightened him further. However it was a big miscalculation in that he weakened the Wallabies so much that their season was a disaster, and even financially it was mistaken as the succession of losses will have devastated crowd numbers and ARU income. If the ARU has enough money now that it has cut every single other expense, surely this is the one time when buying some old and new players would really help. O'Neill said in an interview recently that someone told him the Wallabies were just two or three players short of a great team (it must have occurred to him that he was responsible for the loss of those two or three players). Now though he should use the money available to him and his silver-smooth tongue to get those extra players. In my mind there really is very little to it: 5 players less, 5 players more. The solution is as simple as the problem. As I mention in a response above Tuqiri's loss of form was either a permanent probably physical decline, or a temporary psychological issue (like Rokocoko): in the first case his absence would be good, in the second bad. I think that it was probably a temporary problem, as it was too sudden a loss of form to result from ageing. Robbie Deans could well have brought back that confidence in the same way he has with Palu. It is indeed harder to pin the blame for Tahu. I think that even though he was inclined to leave because of family matters, he had also been inclined to stay before, and that therefore he could probably have been persuaded to stay if the will had been there be it on Deans part or O'Neill's (think what he could have done in Cross' place in the last few matches!). I think Deans' realisation of the resources at his disposal has evolved: this week he has for the first time as far as I remember said that the playing depth is limited and that the best players are all out here. Again, he only went to the media over the third tier recently too. It probably seemed to him last year that even with what was available he could work his miracles, and it took the painful unmasking of that illusion, when a couple of crucial figures were removed for the hidden reality to manifest its ugly self. How much power does Deans have over player comings and goings? Probably not much as you say. Maybe something though. It's not all negative however. Buy those 5 players and with a great coach like Deans things could very soon be rosy once more.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
Greg you're not gloating about having a Mac are you? :) At least you gave me the impetus to finally load that damn Macquarie!!
The Phantom
Guest
With so many posts above stating that Vickerman et all would be the saviours of the current troubles, maybe it is time for the ARU to stop demanding that if you want to play for the Wallabies you have to be contracted to the ARU. I think I saw on another post that the ARU spends upwards of $27 million on player payments. why not drop that to $15 million and use the change for junior development and the (re)creation of a nation competition. Those players who want to play for the Wallabies have to be available to return home for the winter tests (NH off season) and also for the November test window. There are only so many places available for foreign players in the European comps so we would lose some but the S15 & ARC would still be of a good standard and marketable.
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
Try this (from my Mac's dashboard dictionary): "The essence or most serious part of a complaint or accusation".
Pippinu
Roar Guru
Ok - I'm back again - I trust you didn't have to wait. So I've loaded my Macquarie, and I'm happy to confirm that "gravamen" is indeed a word!! (never doubted you Greg!) So here is a cut and paste: gravamen /gruh'vaymuhn/ noun, plural gravamina /gruh'vamuhnuh/. 1. that part of an accusation which weighs most heavily against the accused; the burden or substantial part of a charge or complaint. 2. a grievance. [LL, from L gravare load, weigh down. Cf. grieve] Any wiser after that? Nor am I!!! But here is a hint - if you ever have cause to use this word again - the plural is "gravamina".
Pippinu
Roar Guru
An interesting article from KPM and a good post from Greg R. On a lighter note (and let's be honest, a bit of levity is required at the minute), I thought I had seen it all, until I came across Greg's "gravamen". Not that I would doubt the word of a gentleman, but I had to look it up, being the first I've ever seen it, and I"m sorry to say that I couldn't find it in my Chambers. This calls for desperate measures. As it happens, I've got a DVD of the Macquarie sitting here on my desk, which I have been too lazy to load for nigh on a year. This appears a good a time as any to do precisely that - back in a jif.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Greg I meant dry by New Zealand standards, which are extremely high. They no longer have the best set of forwards in the world and were comprehensively out-muscled by South Africa this year, which wouldn't have happened not so long ago.
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
This article is mostly very good, and certainly comes closer to identifying the gravamen (yes, that's a real word) of Australia's problem than other articles this week (or this year, for that matter). Is it really so painful for Wallaby supporters to have to admit that the team simply doesn't have the cattle? Personally I find this a far more comforting explanation than that of "the team didn't try hard enough", "the team has no pride in the jersey", "Matt Giteau is a pretty boy who doesn't care", and so on. These are all rather embarrassing explanations, because they are things that should not be the case. I don't think there's a Roarer who doesn't agree that the return of Vickerman would be a huge plus. However Tuqiri remains as divisive a figure as ever. It's interesting that John Eales wrote in the Fin Review that the Wallabies are missing Tuqiri far more than most people realize. While I have the utmost respect for the passion of people like stillmissit ("Give me a Hynes over a Tuquiri any day"), I'm afraid I must have more respect for the view of Eales on this one. Tahu is an interesting case. Deans is on record that he tried to recruit Tahu to the Crusaders (a factor in this would be that he is eligible for the All Blacks). So I tend to think that Deans probably wanted Tahu to be a success in rugby, and that he's sad that he has returned to league. I'd suggest that move was driven largely by the player himself: he wanted to play regularly (cf. the fractured season of Australian rugby), and he wanted to be at home with his family much more. I also suspect that kpm is wrong that "Deans seems not to have realised yet that Australia does not contain the same abundant riches." In fact all the evidence is that he does - why else would he take the highly unusual step of going to the media to tell John O'Neill that Australia needs a national competition? (see Wayne Smith on this a few weeks ago). So I don't think that Deans has the power over player comings and goings that is implied above. I also suspect that O'Neill himself would like to be able to retain a lot more players, but he has to deal with the bottom line. That bottom line is that if Hugh McMeniman can earn triple his salary in Japan, and Dan Vickerman really wants a studying and playing sabbatical in Europe, then the ARU simply does not have the money to counter this.
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
To illustrate KO's point: there was a TV feature on Owen Franks before last weekend's test. Interviewer (Ian Jones): "Did you ever imagine you would be in this position?" OF: "Well I started the season as the fourth-ranked prop at the Crusaders, and now I'm the starting tight-head for the All Blacks against England." And he played very well too!
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Pete of course you're right the current team have far too much talent to be unable to beat Scotland. I suppose what I meant was that if those four players had been there all along the team would not have lost so much before, and hence their confidence would not have plummetted, and hence they would not have lost to Scotland. There's no guarantee all four of those players would have performed well certainly, but surely some, at least half of them would. Vickerman was a reliable performer: and if Deans can turn Palu into a reliable one, he could well have done the same with some of the other three. You right though they should have won. O'Neill seems to be a tremendously powerful man in Australian rugby: I'm sure if he ordered Deans to put him in the team he would have to do it!
Pete
Guest
KPM - I agree wholeheartedly - "I hope O’Neill is currently scouring the earth to plug those crucial gaps." ... and I hope he has a plan to improve the depth of Australian Rugby outside of an extra Super Rugby franchise
Pete
Guest
KPM, the team on Sunday should have won. They have the talent, something (everything) went horribly amiss. If only we had Vickerman, McMeniman, Tuqiri and Tahu we would have won... If only Moore had better body height as he lunged for the line, Rocky ground the ball, Cooper threw the ball to Cross instead of Mitchell, or Gits kicked any of those missed goals... we would have won.. and won easily. There is no gaurantees that any of those "ARU booted" players would have performed well this season. Who would have thought 12 months ago that Gits would be having a form slump topped off by having the game from hell. I understand your frustration but unless JON pulls on his boots and stuffs a try or misses a goal I can't blame him for the loss... but it would be pretty cool if he did ask Robbie to give him a run!
Knives Out
Guest
'I agree that there isn’t perhaps as much in New Zealand as is sometimes made out. They seem especially dry in the forwards for example' Thomson, Read, Donnelly, O.Franks... What other test nation has introduced such good players this season? 'But they are just 4 players short of 15, which means they lose.' This presupposes that every other team is 12/13/14/15/15 which clearly can't be true across a broad scale. 'The All Blacks claim they are looking to bring some of their old players back over before the World Cup: is O’Neill doing the same?' Like whom? Peter Hewat, Rodney Blake, Julian Salvi?
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Matt thank you: it's very kind of you to say that. To reply to your points. It's true that depth seems to be spread in odd ways in different countries. For example in Australia there is endless talent in the inside backs (Giteau, Barnes, O'Connor, Cooper, Beale) and almost none, Digby Ioane aside, in the outside backs. I agree that there isn't perhaps as much in New Zealand as is sometimes made out. They seem especially dry in the forwards for example, and at fly-half. On the other hand they will argue they have lost Nick Evans, Carl Hayman, Greg Somerville, Chris Jack and Jerry Collins. Perhaps it's a case that the recent shift in the Tri-nations hierarchy has to do with which country has lost the most players overseas: New Zealand have lost the most, then Australia and then South Africa. However, even if New Zealand perhaps don't produce the endless riches I said above, they probably have just enough to get away with, and just a little more than the Wallabies, who don't quite have enough to get away with. 15 is a small number in the end and so long as they have 15 great players it's fine, but just 2 or 3 under and things change. So I agree with you that the Wallabies are nowhere near as bad as everyone says, and I personally don't think they lack passion at all. But they are just 4 players short of 15, which means they lose. Vickerman may well be enjoying himself abroad now, and so the question is whether John O'Neill has the persuasive powers to bring him back. Indeed I said little of the future in the article. What can John O'Neill do to improve playing stocks? Any new players now would have a full two years before the World Cup, which would be plenty. The All Blacks claim they are looking to bring some of their old players back over before the World Cup: is O'Neill doing the same? I've thought a lot about Tuqiri's loss of form. There are two possibilities: a temporary confidence-related problem, or a permanent decline due to age. If the latter, then the Wallabies are far better without him. However, I think the loss of form when it arrived was simply too sudden to be due to age, and was probably, like the decline of Rokocoko (who's 25), more psychological then anything else. Perhaps Robbie Deans could have restored his confidence and effectiveness: we'll never know. Tuqiri and Mortlock did give Australia physical penetration it's true, but Tuqiri's gone and Mortlock's body seems fallible. It could be that new options must be explored in this area. I think that it's really only on the wings and in the second row that the Wallabies are short of good players, so I agree that they're not a bad team at all. I hope O'Neill is currently scouring the earth to plug those crucial gaps.
Knives Out
Guest
'Take the English and the springboks for example. When they have their full squad they are good teams. The english came second in the 6 nations last year and the springboks won everything in front of them. But this november with a number of injuries or non-starters to their key players they are very very average.' England had 9 first teamers absent and various other subs. 25 players in total. That is a decimation.