- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
New Zealand All Blacks' player Brad Thorn, right lays a tackle on Australia's Stephen Moore during their Bledisloe Cup test. (AP Photo/Andrew Brownbill)
The All Blacks (20) won the intense Test at Christchurch against the Wallabies (10) by creating an iron defensive wall that a backline lacking an X-factor player just could not dent.
The match statistics showed that the All Blacks made 110 tackles. They missed only five, which is a remarkable statistic. Moreover, despite the venom in the tackling there was not one head-high shot from either team.
The Wallabies had to make only 75 tackles. They missed 12 of them. These misses were punished by the All Blacks when they scored scored two splendid ensemble tries which exploited Anthony Faignaa’s eagerness to come out of the defensive line to make a big hit.
The Wallabies had 56 per cent of the possession. But never really looked like scoring a try, even though they went through several long phases of play inside the All Blacks 22. The only try they did score came from a counter-attack launched off an All Blacks mistake when they were on their way to possibly scoring another try.
Daniel Carter made a break. He pushed an around-the-tackler pass that bounced loose. David Pocock (an oustanding fetcher again) grabbed the ball. He passed to Nathan Sharpe who flicked the ball on to Kurtley Beale. The fullback broke away on a 65m run chased by Carter who couldn’t make any ground on him.
The high octane game that the All Blacks play when they have the ball provides great rewards when the passes stick (as they have this year). But when the passes go awry there is the chance for the opposition to do ‘an All Blacks’ on the All Blacks and let rip with a counter-attack.
In fact, the most pleasing aspect of the Wallabies attack, which was too one-off at the advantage line, was that when the ball was run from the back the All Blacks looked as vulnerable to the counter-attack as they have made other teams look this year. A Drew Mitchell 60m break-out could well have resulted in a try which might have turned the Test.
This brings us to Kurtley Beale who orchestrated the Mitchell break-out. He wasn’t tested under the high ball. But he made his tackles, one of Tom Donnelly early on in the Test which saved a try. His kicking was good, especially when he booted the ball virtually into the stands to prevent the All Blacks quick throw-in. He took his chance to score splendidly.
And in general he provided some much-needed variety in what was a predictable Wallabies attack. An indication of this predictability is that the Wallabies could get over the advantage line 65 per cent of their carries. The All Blacks went across the advantage line in over 90 per cent of their runs.
Although rugby is a like a game of chess played by pieces that crash into each other, there is one predictable and uncomplicated factor that tends to confirm the outcome: the team that wins the battle of the advantage line will win the game.
The All Blacks iron wall of defence enabled the home side to win the battle of the advantage line.
One of the notable aspects of the Test for me was the way the All Blacks played with extreme caution at the breakdown, except for Tony Woodcock’s brain explosion in clearing out Saia Faignaa after he had spent some time in the back of the All Blacks ruck.
I think they sensed that the referee Jonathan Kaplan was rather keen to get rid of the tag imposed on him by journalists like Wayne Smith of being a ‘nemesis’ of the Wallabies. It seemed to me that he was extremely tough on the All Blacks at the breakdown.
Richie McCaw was penalised for not coming through the gate when he actually made the tackle and was the only All Black in the ruck. On the other hand, the Wallabies were allowed a lot of discretion (to put it mildly) at the ruck. Salesi Ma’afu, for instance, generally came into the rucks from the side.
The point about Kaplan as a referee is that he has, as I suggested before the Test, an emperor complex. By this I mean he does not like to challenged on his rulings. At one stage in the Test, for instance, he ruled against the Wallabies and when Elsom came forward to discuss it, Kaplan told him: ‘Gert back, get back.’
Right on half-time he penalised the dominant All Blacks scrum not too far out from the Wallaby goal posts (in other words a 3-point decision) for collapsing. As the teams ran off the field McCaw asked him about the penalty which seemed to be a curious one. ‘Not binding,’ Kaplan told him curtly.
Kaplan tends to disregard illegalities if they have no direct effect on play. Perhaps this explains his generosity to Ma’afu. Because the All Blacks were more effective in their rucking, they were being penalised for their illegalities. The All Blacks won five ruck/maul turnovers to the three by the Wallabies.
One time, Giteau was standing behind his try line when he was charged by several All Blacks who were off-side. ‘No effect on play,’ Kaplan told the Wallabies when they claimed an off-side.
He was wrong. As it happened, Giteau kicked the ball in-field for the All Blacks to launch another attack.
The penalty count favoured the Wallabies 11 to eight (including two free kicks). Given the fact that the All Blacks did not contest many Wallaby rucks and the Wallabies contested virtually every All Blacks ruck, this would not suggest that any perceived bias against the Wallabies by Kaplan does not really exist.
It was Rod Kafer at ground level and not someone in the Fox Sports commentary box who pointed out, quite early in the Test, that Matt Giteau was drifting further and further back as the tough All Blacks tackling intensified. It is extremely hard to make the advantage line coming from a deep position. This was a critical factor in the way the Wallaby were thwarting their own efforts in trying to make attacks.
Hopefully, Quade Cooper will rectify this when he comes back. This leaves the matter of where to play Giteau. In my opinion, Giteau is too good a player not to be in a Wallaby run-on team. I thought that Anthony Faingnaa, despite his over-eagerness on defence, did enough to justify his continued selection.
As Giteau is important to have in the side but is not the number 10 or inside centre the Wallabies need right now, I make my annual appeal to the Wallaby selectors to play him on the wing as a Shane Williams clone.
The Wallabies have defeated the Springboks comfortably at Brisbane this season. They have been thrashed at Melbourne by the All Blacks and then on Saturday stayed with the All Blacks for 80 minutes at Christchurch.
Cooper coming back will have an immediate benefit. Longer term, Tatafu Polata-Nau and Wycliff Palu will give the Wallabies the go-forward that his missing right now.
The fact remains, though, that they are well behind the All Blacks right now. Where the Wallabies really stand in comparision with the Springboks (who looked tired and out of sorts at Brisbane) will be revealed in their coming two Tests in South Africa.
Given the loss of a number of key players, I’d say that the Wallabies are ahead of where they were last year. This is good. The problem with this, though, aside from the consideration that the Springboks are always formidable at home, is that the All Blacks are hugely improved on last year.
There is clear air between the All Blacks and the Wallabies which can’t be a good thing with RWC 2011 coming up next year.