In the 1964 Test series between England and the West Indies, English batsman Ken Barrington withdrew in protest against West Indian fast bowler Charlie Griffith, whom he suspected of chucking. Certainly Griffith was unfeasibly fast, having fractured the skull of Indian prodigy Nari Contractor in 1961. Barrington’s withdrawal didn’t endear him one iota to Griffith, who took it personally.
In 1966, when England toured the West Indies, Barrington was then called upon to face Griffith, in the opening Test of the tour at Port Of Spain. As Barrington took strike, Griffith methodically rolled his sleeves and paced out his mark once, twice, three times, while Barrington waited.
Eventually starting a few inches inside the sightscreen, Griffith made his murderous way to the popping crease and let fly with a ball so fast that Barrington didn’t even see it. In the spirit of self-preservation, he decided not to even bother trying to play it, and simply threw himself flat on his back.
The second ball was only marginally slower, and the following few were still miles above normal velocity, with Barrington employing the same prone defence each time. Slowly though, as one writer put it at the time “the ice in Barrington’s veins started to thaw and he began to build a score”.
Eventually, Barrington went on to make a famous century – 143 in fact – although as the same writer noted “it would do him no credit to describe it, for it contained chances, blemishes and luck. But at the same time it also contained about as much grit as has ever been seen on a cricket pitch”.
So when I was waiting for my heart rate to return to normal after the Hong Kong Bledisloe Test match, and for the neighbours’ lights to go out again following my strangled screaming over the final seconds, the phrase kept echoing in my head about the Wallabies victory. That it would do them no credit to describe the victory, but there was as much grit as has ever been seen from a Wallaby side.
Certainly after 78 minutes I was busy preparing a eulogy for a team that once again seemed destined to crack under the pressure of a 10-zip record against the All Blacks – the rugby world’s equivalent of the Panzer tank.
For most of the match, the Wallabies first up defence and organisation was appalling. Mark Chisolm made an awful attempt on Ma’a Nonu in the first half which allowed him to waltz straight through the line.
Quade Cooper’s attempt on Richie McCaw was probably the softest attempted tackle from any player in the whole of this year’s Tri-Nations. Cooper and Matt Giteau both also fell badly off tackles in the leadup to Jimmy Cowan’s try, and when Cowan finally scored, he slipped through a yawning gap because Ben McCalman and Nathan Sharp got completely mixed up right on their own line.
Again, the Wallaby goalkicking was woeful, and the logic of having Matt Giteau as the starting kicker escapes most rugby followers.
Compared with the great Wallaby goalkickers like Michael Lynagh and Matt Burke, Giteau is nowhere, so why the Wallaby coaching staff still think he’ll suddenly morph into a great kicker, when his kicking has lost us three Tests in the last year, is anyone’s guess.
Can you imagine Matt Burke, Dan Carter or Morne Steyne giving away two matchwinners to part-timers, like Giteau was forced to do with the winning kicks against the Springboks and All Blacks this year? Ridiculous. The sooner the Wallabies settle on a quality kicker, the better.
To add to the tackling and goalkicking woes (two fundamentals wouldn’t you say?), the Wallaby scrum was immediately subject to serious scrutiny by the All Blacks front row and buckled a little without ever fully capitulating.
The hope was that the two Ben(n)s would stabilise the set piece, but they perhaps need a bit more game time to cement Alexander’s return from injury.
Referee Alain Rolland was disgraceful in his calling of the scrum for both sides, taking an age to call the scrum engagement. What all referees fail to realise is that to maintain a rhythmic 1-2-3-4 count, you have to realise that the pause takes place while you’re saying “pause”, not after you have said “pause”. So it’s not “crouch-touch-pause……….engage”. It’s simply “crouch-touch-pause-engage”.
And when it ends up as “Crouch…….touch……pause…………………………..engage”, it becomes pretty much hopeless for everyone concerned. If I’d had the appetite, I reckon I could have boiled an egg every time Rolland packed a scrum.
In between all this though, the Wallabies managed to put on four tries, two of which were as good as any you’d want to see. Adam Ashley-Cooper’s line was a thing of beauty, taking him back towards the left side of the field and through the All Blacks forwards who were coming across from the lineout. The tireless Brad Thorn almost got in an ankle tap, but Ashley-Cooper skipped out of it and swan-dived under the posts after a 60 metre effort.
In the second half, Drew Mitchell steamed 30 metres to score after some great leadup work from Beale, whose newfound pace set the whole thing up. The three decoys inside Beale did their work, allowing him to take the cutout pass and flash downfield like a salmon heading upstream.
Coming face to face with Mils Muliaina, Beale made a decision which ensured the try. Instead of simply drawing and passing, he dummied and held the ball, before passing. The single metre of room created for Mitchell by the turn of Muliaina’s shoulders, meant that he was able to set sail into space and be going at Mach 2 by the time Joe Rokocoko zoomed across in cover. Mitchell in space with a try in sight, is as quick as anyone in Test rugby, and he was not going to be denied.
Two fantastic tries, and both kicked off by a pinpoint wide pass from Quade Cooper, first to Ashley-Cooper, and then to Beale.
Earlier in the game, Cooper also kicked off the scoring with his own show-and-go from phase play, and also threw the final pass for the winning try to O’Connor.
So he’s basically been an integral part of every try, but watching him tackle is like watching a hairdresser with a teasing comb go up against a tow-truck driver with a tyre lever.
It’s no contest, and it’s no surprise that when the All Blacks got some ball after about 15 minutes, they started sending runners flooding down the 10 channel. Richie McCaw in particular swatted Cooper off with the same disdain as he might have batted away a tree weta (which could have accounted for Cooper’s disgraceful and gutless push in McCaw’s back in the aftermath of O’Connor’s winning try).
In the forwards, Mark Chisolm was given a chance to cement a test spot, but let it slip with an ordinary display. His ball carry lacked punch, his cleanout was patchy and his defence was woeful. He also put a dent in Saia Faingaa’s confidence when he dropped Faingaa’s first lineout throw cold to gift possession to the All Blacks.
In spite of all this though, the Wallabies hung in there through misplaced kicks, turnovers, missed tackles and cold drops and waited for their chances and luck.
Those chances and luck came at the death, when after immeasurable phases hurling themselves at the All Blacks brickwall defence they turned the ball over. Instead of banging the ball into the back row of the stands, the All Blacks made the crucial error of not putting it out, thereby giving Beale the chance to set up the Wallabies again.
Despite being surrounded by a good pack of chasers, Beale slipped away on the left and again made metres with his new found pace. The Wallabies found themselves on the front foot and made sure of the opportunity, controlling the ball through several more phases before sending James O’Connor over from only a few metres out.
It’s often said that the good players want the ball in their hands when the pressure is on, and if that’s so, then O’Connor must be one of the greats. Imagine kicking from near the sideline, to win a match after the siren, against the All Blacks, following a string of 10 straight defeats? The pressure must have been utterly suffocating.
But O’Connor casually slotted the goal like it was his last practice kick in the backyard before mum called him in for dinner. Only a little airpunch revealed his excitement at the success, before he was mobbed by his teammates.
Of those teammates, David Pocock and Rocky Elsom showed the way for the Wallabies, battling through the peaks and troughs, and steadying the ship. The front row of Moore, Alexander and Robinson was adequate without being outstanding, although Robinson and Alexander both worked hard in the loose.
Chisolm was dreadful, but Nathan Sharp was his usual tradesmanlike self. Will Genia gave stellar service, and the fact that Cooper was so often able to set his runners away, was testament to the quality of Genia’s pass. Of the threequarters, Matt Giteau was ordinary and he must have been lonely, being surrounded by O’Connor the matchwinner, Ashley-Cooper and Mitchell the tyro tryscorers and Beale with his dashing pace and confidence.
For once, instead of managing to lose a game they had every right to win, the Wallabies managed to win a game that they had every right to lose. In fact, given the quality of play from All Blacks like Kieran Read, Jimmy Cowan, Ma’a Nonu, Keven Mealamu and Richie McCaw, it’s hard to believe that they managed to stay in touch at all.
But champion teams find a way to win, no matter how bad things are. Certainly no good team can ever contemplate becoming a champion team without putting some tough games to bed. And that’s what this Wallaby team managed to do – put to bed a game that they really had no right to win.
As we said in the beginning, it does them no credit to describe the win, for it contained blemishes, chances and luck, and like Ken Barrington against the imposing Charlie Griffith, the Wallabies in this series have spent a fair bit of time on their backs.
Time will tell whether they can now build to a memorable score.
Invictus
Guest
Too true, cattledog. Hookers are dangerously competitive animals. I can't claim the idea as mine, it has been mentioned by the commentators during several matches (both ITM and Currie Cup) that scrum resets seemed to be less when the players handled the engagement. I recall Nesbitt saying that they had kept track of the amount of time lost through scrum resets in one match and it totalled 10 mins!!
Cattledog
Guest
I like the thinking outside the box with your second point Invictus, however, knowing hookers, this may soon turn into a competition to milk penalties! I think you're also right with de-powering the hit. The competition for the ball starts when the half feeds it. If again they actually fed the ball straight, then a proper competition for the ball may well occur.
Invictus
Guest
It will be interesting to see who gets the front row spots against Leicester. A real possibility of a scrum rout depending on exactly who is available for Leicester.
Invictus
Guest
No, they try to walk over it with the 'hit'.
Invictus
Guest
There are really only two options for the scrum - 1) get away from the big hit mentality - this is what causes the majority of resets. Since the contest is not supposed to begin until after the ball is thrown in the big hit is entirely superfluous. It seldom leads to a stable scrum allowing the ball to be fed. In most cases (non-collapse) it leads to pushing off the mark which should be an automatic penalty. 2) Let the hooker of the side feeding the ball call the engagement - at least the cadence will then be consistent.
Cattledog
Guest
John, I don't have an issue with the slowing down, but the cadence must remain the same. Ask any hooker at a high level the forces he's holding back waiting for the referees call. No person, or nothing I've seen has convinced me that having a pause of varying lengths improves the safety or stability of the scrum. The best stability comes when the both sides hit properly AT THE SAME TIME and this is what the referees must work on getting right. Their belief that varying the length of the pause before calling 'engage' is the answer, clearly does not appear to be working very well. I'm all for safety in the scrum (my son's a hooker at Premier level) and I must say much of my ideas come from what he says. You may be right, the scrum could well be de-powered in time if they are not able to find a happy medium. Safety, as you say is paramount but I would hate to see the scrums go the way of league, although that is looking more the case if the issue cannot be resolved. Time will tell.
Ionz
Guest
Well done Wallabies!! I am a NZ Fan and I believe a win was good for Aust and a Loss was good for NZ... Its just the law of averages espcially in professional sport there has never been a team that keeps winning all the time in professional sport and for the SAB's to do it 10 times in a row in the professional era is unheard of embarrassing and humiliating it actually puts the Wallabies in the same boat as Wales and Ireland or England when it comes to matches against the All Blacks its just that the wallabies play us 4 times a year and when you play the best in any sport that many times then improvement is surely a given, however in terms of contests the Bledisloe cup is no longer one and hasn't been for 3 or 4 years you changed the rules to suit you when you held it to make it hard for NZ to win it back, the Tri nations is becoming that way too with the All Blacks winning 10 of 15 tournaments played...the World cup is a different story and is a knockout tournament where anyone can win on any given day and teams get up for this once every 4 years its also left to other vagaries and whoever wins wins a knock out tournament based around skill but also luck ... not playing consistency... Yes well done Wallabies but what was really on offer and what did you win?? Everything had already been won by the AB's this year....in 2010 Bledisloe NZ 3 - Aust 1 thats the reality (Cup already won by Game 4) Tri Nations NZ 3 - AUST Zip NZ 3 - SA ZIP (Cup already one by last game) Against Australia since 2008 - NZ 11 - Aust 1 The last time Aust beat NZ, NZ went on a 10 game streak, thats right wonder what the strteak will be now?
JohnB
Guest
Cattledog - About a month ago someone sent me a piece written by Paddy O'Briean in something called "International Rugby Coaching" - not sure when it was published but looks like it was in the past 3 or 4 months. An extract from that reads: 3 Slowing down the scrum call We have requested that referees do not let players dictate the scrum engagement cadence. They have to trust the referee’s call. We want to slow the engagement process down to reduce the number of scrum resets. At the moment there is a lot of talk about scrum resets, but it is a phenomenon mostly found at the top level. Yes, the referee has a strong role to play. The problem lies also with the players. They are trying their very best to outdo the opposition, by foul means or fair. With all that movement, inevitably scrums will collapse. If you go down a few levels, you will not find the same amount of resets. It boils down to player buy-in. Why should the referee have to battle with the front rows to gain a steady scrum? Personally, I think it will get to the point that the engagement will be taken out of it and the packs will either come together one row at a time or altogether, but without a "hit". In many ways that would be bad, but it would reduce re-sets and guessing who's at fault for a collapse, as well as increasing safety. In this day and age, that S word carries a lot of weight.
Coc0nut
Guest
Well done to the Aussies.... a great game and a great spectacle. I'm a die-hard AB fan, but equally, love to see an open game of footy. I do think though that this game and its result are more important for the ABs than the Wallabies frankly. I say this because it gets a monkey off the ABs backs for one thing. First, Henry & Co. can now stop being so fixated on the number of wins in a row. Henry was obviously overly concerned with his legacy, now he can get on with focussing on the real prize next year. Also it takes the pressure of the ABs in other respects, such as consecutive wins against the Wallabies, wearing the 'favorites' tag etc etc. Now, they can just focus on doing what they do best. And I'm sorry to the Wallabies supporters, but I saw nothing really in the Wallaby performance that tells me anything has really changed. I think they were a little lucky to come away with a win - but hey, you make your own luck right? If you were to be really honest with yourselves, you'd have to admit that many of the same problems are still there for the Wallabies - namely in the forwards - all of them bar Poc0ck. So, good luck to them for the Northern tour, congrats again for the win, and I pity the English, for they are going to be the ones who are going to feel the full force of the ABs frustrations at letting that one slip away!!
Ben S
Roar Guru
There were a few occasions on Saturday when Pocock received the ball with men outside him and he didn't even look left or right, so I recognise OJ's point. I think it's fair to say that whilst Pocock is very, very good over the ball he is not a natural linking player. Some players have the ability to do both, like Martyn Williams and George Smith, but not Pocock. That doesn't strike me as an unfair analysis.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
There's nothing positive to say because I think his role in the match is being overstated. Personally, I thought Beale was the single most important Wallaby on the field and there were plenty of other Wallabies working hard at the breakdown. Pocock stood out on defense towards the end, but in terms of ball retention I thought a lot of Wallabies put an effort into that area. I was arguing that Pocock should replace Smith long before it happened, just like I argued that Mortlock should be dropped. But Pocock right now does one thing exceptionally well and that's attack the ball as either the tackler or other player. He may develop into a great seven in time but he's not there yet. Chisholm was pulling on Donnolly's arm. This was one of numerous tricks the Wallabies pulled in that Test. In fact, I actually thought the Test was marked by a change in the Wallabies' attitude in terms to 50/50 legality. There was much more holding back of players, deliberate obstruction, loitering, etc. than usual. I remember when Aussie coaches used to accuse us of cheating using decoy runners and the Wallabies were doing it with reckless abandon on Sat night. No-one will buy that around here because they think the Wallabies are angels and they think McCaw cheats when he's on his feet but gets pushed over at a ruck. The Fox Sports commentators getting it wrong about Richie in that Test pretty much sums up the built-in bias.
jameswm
Guest
Doesn't contribute anything in the loose? You mean doesn't contribute much? Or was that a hologram of him I saw a few times? You still haven't had a positive thing to say about Pocock. As for the lineouts - you don't bind in a lineout, or did you mean something else? I've given you a summarised list of McCaw's tricks. I'm yet to see Pocock do any of these, especially the really cynical ones. Call it the naivete of youth - right and wrong, black and white - before it all becomes grey as you get older...
Ben S
Roar Guru
Try and be more zen, CD.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
i'm not kidding. If a New Zealand forward takes the ball into contact and makes extra metres either in the tackle or because he wasn't held then unless his support is directly behind him then he's as isolated as a back is when they make a break and find themselves without any support. There was one penalty that Pocock won where the Australian defenders were between the ball carrier and his support. You're dreaming if you think the Wallabies don't loiter around on the wrong side of the ruck.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Wasn't properly bound.. Was Chisholm properly bound when he kept pulling Donnolly's arm in the lineouts? I don't see you getting your knickers in a twist over that. The only thing I said about Pocock was that he doesn't contribute anything in the loose, which is true. Imagine if Pocock were an All Black. You'd all be claiming he's a cheat and a one trick pony.
Wawnout
Guest
Cory Jane was responding to an inquiry from JOC about his injury, they are mates.
Cattledog
Guest
I hear what your saying John, and no doubt there's been some direction on it. But I know these decisions are not being made by front rowers who know the situation intimately. Haven't seen one referee who's played at any level in the front row yet so perhaps put a couple in as hooker and then have some goose pause them for an inordinate amount of time! With a regular cadence you will get better results and you will also see anyone going early. The crux to the whole issue is getting both teams hitting together. That's currently not happening.
Kiwikool
Guest
I tell you what I am really loving rugby again, Even though the Abs lost..:( The thing I love about the game these days is that there seems to be alot of last minute wins happening. Not just at test level but also with the ITM cup...It makes great to watch right to the end. SA vs Aus, NZ vs SA, Aus vs NZ, Waikato vs Auckland any more?
JohnB
Guest
On the Barrington/Griffith story - I'm sure I've read there was considerable respect between the two of them and that Charlie Griffith was one of the first to visit Barrington when he was convalescing after his first heart attack. Not sure how that relates to Saturday's pleasing result.
JohnB
Guest
I think there have been directions about the timing, and I think part of it is not to get into a clear rythym as that allows anticipation on the engagement.