- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
The Wallabies are getting closer. It’s what we’re told. We can feel it on the inside, too: “the one that got away” was definitely close.
Heck, it was better than the time “when you muster all that’s left of your will to hex Dan Carter’s final conversion attempt and save the score-line ticking over to 50”, as John Eales put it last month.
We are going to win a few games soon.
That will make some fans happy, it will bring back some other fans and the businesses will probably start returning our calls again.
Besides all that even if we won a few, on the inside we know there is a fault somewhere down in the rabbit holes of the planning, development and administration of Australian Rugby; in particular in the ARU and NSWRU.
Short of John O’Neill passing on his leadership mantle to a select few rugby tragics who spend hours everyday reading and commenting on the game (I’m talking about you), we can’t really say exactly what’s wrong and it certainly won’t be fixed quickly. It needs to take time and building.
Here are two things that I believe could help in the short-term:
Situational game-planning
It becomes apparent watching the Wallabies that we have a fairly youthful side full of ideas and a temperament to a quick playing style (whatever THAT really looks like, more on that later) and we can execute well sometimes.
About three minutes after making this observation you will feel the stabbing pain of a lost lineout at the five-metre line, a long throw-in to no-one at your own 10m mark, a quick blindside attacking raid from the defensive 22 – through a hooker? – that ends in touch, being up by 14 and leaving a gaping hole up the middle when you are only one man down on that side of the field and numerous other things that hurt a side more than the physical impact of points scored or possession lost.
It dents confidence, saps energy and created mountains out of molehills.
For all their ability to “play what’s in front of them” (I know I harp on it, but I still think it has as much to say as “moving forward” did) they still lack situational awareness in pressure moments.
I personally think, without fully knowing what happens at training, it would be wise to focus on these areas more in training:
– Seven on seven drills to focus on covering space in attack and defence.
– 15 attack versus 14 defenders and the other way around to learn how to cover small gaps and how to exploit small gaps. Switch it around to 14 attack and 15 defence sometimes too.
– 12 attackers on 15 defenders and learn how to make moves to beat a set defence. This area is sorely missing from out game. Short of playing at breakneck speed do we have a reliable team pattern to break down a ready defensive wall? And switch that too. Make the defence learn how to commit to the tackle at the right moments and still have enough people in the line to make up the gaps.
I would add another thing to these periods of practice – the weight of exhaustion. These parts of practice should ideally be done at the end of the session, when players have already been conditioning and working hard.
You need to know that when there is a break in the defensive line and everyone is tired at the end of the match there is the wherewithal to set up a semblance of defensive pressure and organisation.
What sets New Zealand apart often is that when a half break is created or even a full break (think when Drew Mitchell returned a kick with interest in Christchurch) they have the ability to reset and be effective even for the period of time when some slower players aren’t yet in position.
They force the error because a team can’t waltz on in.
Ask Lleyton Hewitt what he used to do well at his peak – make them hit another ball. Better game simulated situational practice would help the Wallabies on both sides of the ball.
Team Identity
Who are these Wallabies? Are they a group working hard to let the genius of a few shine through like the Ella brothers/Lynagh teams in the ’80s? Are they a set of consummate professionals each pursuing excellence in their particular role as the Eales Wallabies were? Are they serious overachievers with a plan in place like the Eddie Jones Wallabies 2003 World Cup mould?
These current Wallabies probably couldn’t say succinctly or with any meaning what they are trying to do when they walk onto the field for a game of rugby.
Of course they are trying to win, of course they need to attack and defend, but what does that look like? How do they achieve their goals?
If we were to quickly decide we want to play a fast game of rugby and use that as the basis of our team play, we could get better almost immediately. We would need athletic forwards that can carry the ball, be combative but possibly most importantly retain possession when the backs carry the ball.
We give the backline a short playbook for set pieces where deception is needed most and then let the mercurial talents take over to an extent when phases build.
Choice of the forwards would be very easy. We would need players that are as much athlete as they are bulk:
– McCalman would be selected at 7.
– Pocock could move to number 8 to get rid of Brown. Break with convention, have a smaller number 8. Pocock has the hands to give the ball to the halfback off the back of a scrum.
– Rocky Elsom is at 6 and is definitely being challenged by Higginbotham. Simmons would unseat Dean Mumm quickly.
– Sharpe is in there for the line-outs and his overall work rate is good this year.
– James Slipperis picked over Ma’afu – remember we are going for an athletic forward pack that can be combative but also move quickly to retain possession that our backs use.
– We shorten the line-outs and throw quickly to make the most of not having a great many options in that department.
– Scrummaging is about technique as much as it is about brute force, so the team can continue to improve in that regard (are they anyway?) with good coaching.
Wycliffe Palu and Tatafu Polota-Nau are two players that could step back into the team. And possibly Dan Vickerman as an interchange for Nathan Sharpe’s roll if the time off has revitalised him not make him less effective.
In the back line there could be some lesser changes made to help this identity shift:
– Both of the wingers need to be strike runners or home run hitters. I would choose Drew Mitchell and Lachie Turner at this stage.
– The playmakers would need to be clearly identified as Quade Cooper at 10 and Kurtley Beale at 15. Beale should be given a special directive to make the most of the blind side as first receiver at times.
– Giteau would be retained as a number 12 and told to watch at least 100 hours of footage of what he played like the last time he was allowed to play outside a true playmaker (Larkham).
– Adam Ashley-Cooper would be the outside centre with the vision to control the backline in defence and be a solid, consistent ball runner in midfield.
It isn’t too hard to give a team identity and give it a sense of all being aimed at one goal – to win, but be very well planned in how it wants to get to that goal.
The Wallabies could improve within a month if they worked out exactly what they wanted to be, they don’t have to take on my ideas, they can form their own if they wish. They desperately need to.
We can’t continue to be average at everything and excellent at nothing.
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.