On Saturday night I was at a family dinner, of all places, confidently predicting an All Blacks triumph against the Wallabies in Hong Kong. “The Wallabies haven’t demonstrated that they can close out a tight match yet,” I recall saying.
“And I don’t think they’re capable of coming back from a deficit to beat the All Blacks; the ABs defence is just too damned solid,” I continued.
Channel Seven had kindly moved the match off 7Two and 7 Mate in Melbourne, screening it at 1.30am, so I was forced to excuse myself from the table every four minutes to check live scoring.
When the All Blacks got out to 24 points, I walked back to the table full of confidence that we’d see an 11th straight victory and the Wallabies would be in yet another world of pain.
Returning to the feed three minutes from time, I was astounded, and as I watched, James O’Connor pulled his iPod earbuds out, channeled Justin Bieber, and won the game for the Wallabies.
Stunned? I was gobsmacked. Nearly everything I’ve been spouting on The Roar for the past three weeks was incorrect. The Wallabies *can* close out a game. They *do* back themselves. They *can* penetrate. They *are* building. They *still* have the ability to wait until the death knell, then sneak in a dirty little final try to steal the game.
Uh-oh, when’s the World Cup? Couldn’t we have played it at the end of the Tri-Nations this year?
With the cold light of a monsoonal Melbourne Sunday, I’ve had the opportunity to review the match and the replay, and the wider impact of this Wallabies win. And here is my top 10 list of outputs/inferences from the win.
1. The Wallabies have passed daylight on the IRB rankings.
This win means a lot in terms of split on IRB ranking points – Wallabies are still second, but only just! The margin between the two teams was slashed (by my calculations) from ~ 9 points to ~5.4 points.
2. Both sides take deep breath – it’s not that big a deal outside of Australia and New Zealand.
And it’s not.
There’s been such a lead up to this match that we forget there are other teams to play on each of the tours. England are in for a beating, because nothing arcs up an All Blacks team like a narrow loss.
The Wallabies also need to settle for the tour ahead; it didn’t end in Hong Kong.
3. Normal Bledisloe coverage to resume.
Despite loving watching the All Blacks win, there’s little satisfaction in a whitewash. We’re in for some cracking, ‘everything’s riding on this one penalty’ final matches in upcoming Bledisloes. I welcome this high pressure, high temperature environment, as it makes hardened performers of all involved.
4. Depth is a real problem for both sides.
With Carter or McCaw missing from the line-up, the All Blacks are down about five men and ten points. But the same can be said for Cooper and Bam Bam – these two players missing from the Wallabies would have an equivalent effect.
Weepu’s absence from scrumhalf was noted (thanks Alby) but there’s no-one approaching Genia in ability, either.
5. The torch is about to pass… from McCaw to Bam Bam.
There, I said it.
I hope it doesn’t pass before the RWC, but about three weeks afterwards. I can’t see McCaw with any more tricks left to give, and he’s slowing down. His heart, courage, and intensity are absolutely magnificent.
But Bam Bam seems to get better with every match, and what he delivers even at this age is approaching dominance.
Richie McCaw is still in my mind the best captain in the world and one of the players to ever grace the game of rugby; but he’s up against a Zimbabwean with one hell of a brain, brawn, and the evil little book of tricks that can only be gleaned from the dark arts of forwards play between the Tri Nations teams.
6. It was ‘the win Robbie Deans had to have.’
Baby steps, but steps in the right direction – he’s managed to instil the ever-necessary confidence into the players, and they appear to be able to back themselves out of a tight spot, something sorely missing three months ago.
His doctor will be pleased; Dean’s blood pressure would have returned almost to pre-2010 levels by now.
7. It was ‘the loss the All Blacks had to have.’
In some ways, a loss like this acts a short-circuit for any unintentional build-up of expectation. It’s certainly a wake up call for the fans – myself included – who realise that 2011 is not a sure thing, and may help to adjust public expectations (although not likely).
Graham Henry will be irritated, but not despondent about the loss.
I actually think in the scheme of things that this loss will do more for the development of both sides than the opposite result would.
Additionally, it means the All Blacks slip a bit back off the pedestal, and the Wallabies come under increased scrutiny by opponent teams in opposing WC contender unions. Look at how England chumped the Wallabies in 2003 and 2007; all teams are equally as vulnerable as one another in the RWC.
It only takes a single drop-goal.
8. Writing the ABs off at this point, on the basis of this game, is foolish.
I suspect this isn’t ‘news’ to many Roarers; it’s a fantastic outcome for Wallabies supporters but in the scheme of things it’s a return to the expected pattern of behaviour for both teams.
But the fair-weather supporters that disappeared two years ago will jump back on the bandwagon chanting ‘Aussie, Aussie, Aussie!’ and rebuilding the traditional enmity between the countries.
That is, until the next loss, then they’ll switch back to cricket until the next Ashes loss, tennis until Stosur or Hewitt drop off again, and Formula One til Mark Webber crashes out one too many times.
9. How the Wallabies respond to a win is just as important as how they respond to a loss.
So many times we’ve seen a team get up for a massive, unexpected win against a formidable opponent, then fall over sideways twitching when their next opponents step up in a similar way.
The tour up north is not a short, easy jaunt against weak teams. It’s time for the Wallabies to demonstrate consistency and to focus on the task at hand – getting to the World Cup with the skills, knowledge and tools to beat the All Blacks.
It would be an unmitigated disaster to lose to any of the NH teams.
10. Quade Cooper is destined for notoriety.
His unprovoked attack on McCaw in McCaw’s tackle on O’Connor in the closing moments of the game indicates a streak of nastiness four foot wide running from his eyebrows to his toenails.
Admittedly McCaw could’ve released earlier; it was the game-winning try, and Nonu has been similarly aggressive to opponent players in the past. But this act alone reconfirms my opinion of him – that he’s a nasty, arrogant little piece of work.
To act in that manner in victory indicates his lack of respect and lack of class.
He’s not an ambassador of Australian rugby, he’s a very naughty boy.
Zac Zavos
Editor
Johnny-boy - it was the language you used. You should know that we don't stop debate on this site, but we don't allow swear words.
jeremy
Guest
OJ, I think it's a two-fold issue with substitutions from injury, etc. If you map what he brings to the team in tactical kicking, points kicking, leadership, try-scoring ability / running game, and defence, he covers a hell of a lot. Replace him with Donald, who may be almost as good in some areas but is nowhere near Carter in others, and suddenly he's not providing the extra level of defence, you lose the ability to clear, etc. Then, as you've mentioned, there are the combos. Carter seems to slot easily into any backs combo, and works well even behind a weaker pack. Donald requires extra support from his forwards and doesn't lead the backs as well. So in a Carter injury there's more than the loss of a single man, there's the boost that Carter provides. You're spot-on in saying 'everyone gets injured', from memory Carter, McCaw, Smith, Muliaina, Jane, Kaino, Mealamu, and Hore have all had serious injuries during their ABs careers. So it's not unforseeable that a percentage of players will always be out on injury at any one time.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
How can anybody know if Slade or Cruden would've done a better job? We had McAlister and Evans who could back-up Carter at the last World Cup, even MacDonald if necessary, and it still couldn't prevent the screwjob. I imagine if we had a truly excellent back-up for Carter he'd leave for Europe or be converted into a winger or fullback or something. That was the problem with Evans and the reason why Brett went to the Blues and now Slade to the Highlanders, right?
allblackfan
Guest
would that mean, based on the games this year, you'd pick Donald over Slade? Or Cruden over Slade? I suspect what Henry wants is a truly world-class 22; in other words, your reserves should not weaken your game plan. To the best of my knowledge, no team has achiever this feat.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
You can't go into a tournament worried about Carter or McCaw getting injured, just like there's no way you can have the perfect little first five and openside warming up on the sidelines. Coaches complicate things even further these days by feeling the urge for utility cover. There was no winger on the bench in HK when Cory Jane went off and likewise Daniel Braid will have a hard time winning a bench spot as a straight up replacement for McCaw. He may be in the WC squad, but that doesn't mean anything if he's not in the match day 22 when McCaw limps over injured. It's striving for perfection in an imperfect world. The bench is important (I bang on about it all the time with Robbie Deans), but all teams are required to have benches. It doesn't equal depth. Look at Dagg this season. Great off the bench against South Africa, but found wanting in defense when he started as a wing against Australia. Does Dagg add to our depth? You see some Kiwis rattling off the names of every Tom, Dick and Harry. Depth, in my view, means you're on every tour and a regular in the team even off the bench.
allblackfan
Guest
The fuss over depth stems from the desire to create 80 minutes of high-intensity rugby; no starting XV can finish the game playing at the same intensity based on what we've seen in the 3N this year. And again, let me repeat: depth is about tournaments. In a RWC, especially, you will NOT have the luxury of time if your first choice players are injured; this applies less so during pool play and more so during sudden elimination rounds. Going into a rWC, assume the worse; your best players at some point will get injured. Better hope you have the depth to replace them (or at least cover for them!)
ohtani's jacket
Guest
I don't agree. Modern coaches have a tendency to micro-manage the game and that's what leads to all this fuss over depth. It wasn't until 1998 that the bench was enlarged to seven and all of them could be used as tactical substitutions. You only have to look at the mother of all squads that Henry took the World Cup last time to see that it's not the be all and end all. HK didn't illustrate a lack of depth as much as it illustrated a lack of coaching for when the substitute first five comes on.
allblackfan
Guest
OJ, depth comes into its own in a tournament such as the 3n, 6n or the RWC. I'd have thought Stephen Donald's performance at HK would have illustrated perfectly the dangers of shallow depth.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
I'd like to make a few points about number four. I don' t buy into the notion of depth in Test match rugby. Too many people get carried away with who's on the bench and how many players can cover each position, but rugby is about choosing the 15 or more players who play best together. The Wallabies' success in beating New Zealand and South Africa isn't because Deans built depth but because he discovered that Beale, Mitchell and O'Connor play well together as the back three (to state an obvious example of a problem area that never worked under Deans until recently.) Combinations are more important than depth. They always have been and they always will be. In fact, I'd argue that you can only truly achieve depth if you have depth in combinations. The other gripe I have about the depth talking point is the old chestnut "what if so and so get injured?" What if they do? EVERY sports team in the world faces the same predicament. I don't even see how it's a problem. Would you rather have one outstanding player or two lesser players of the same quality? If your star player gets injured it's terrible luck, that's all.
Sylvester
Guest
"I can’t see McCaw with any more tricks left to give, and he’s slowing down." Physically, he should be but who would know? He's still usually the first the breakdown, topping the tackle count and playing the link role he's developed in his game. Ruck turnovers are important, but still a very small contributor to overall turnovers in a game. McCaw has always specialised in the tackle/steal, which has become difficult to effect with the interpretations saying the tackler must release first. It gives support players that extra couple of seconds. Pocock's speciality is first man in, which is the role Read plays for the ABs. In all other aspects of forward, McCaw is still the master.
mickh
Guest
No worries. I know most of your posts and other Kiwi regulars are usually fair.
jeremy
Guest
Hi Wylie, In this context, yes - I'd have no hesitation defining Jerry Collins as a big-ass, hard-headed Samoan, Joe Rokococo and Lote Tuqiri as flying Fijian wingers.
jeremy
Guest
Mick, I haven't seen the Cooper / Mcaw replay so will dig it up. Cooper's actions could also have been frustration from his missed tackle on McCaw as well. Fair call on the interview post-match, I was watching via an online stream thanks to Seven not bothering showing the game live in Melbourne, and the stream closed about a minute after the end of the match. Funnily enough I didn't stay up till 1.30am to wait for the post-match commentary. Not having a crack at the breadth of sporting ability, rather the supporters that jump on when it starts getting interesting then jump off at the first defeat. Support your team, win or lose. Re final point if that's your interpretation of the tone of article, so be it - it wasn't the intent.
Craig Johanson
Guest
Got to agree that hopefully we will be seeing a new era of games where it could go either way. While it shaves years off your lifespan it certainly gets the heart going and makes for a great spectacle.
matty dee
Guest
Ah la Woodcock
johnny-boy
Guest
Gee Zac getting a bit precious arent you removing my post. So its OK to have shot at Cooper on this site but we are not allowed to criticise Kiwis ? Your heritage makes them a protected species does it ?
Wylie
Guest
"but he’s up against a Zimbabwean" So I'm assuming you refer to all the Pacific Island born All Blacks as Samoan, Tongan or Fijian?
Even looser
Guest
Timana Tahu certainly had potential but was / is mentality fragile.
Damo
Guest
While on the subject of hair my Kiwi mate tells me that a certain AB centre also likes to wear make up. Not that there is anything wrong with that.........And there was me thinking they are all pretty enough. Mickh I agree too. There was also the sly reference to Pocock's Zimbabwean birth place. (He's not really an Aussie, y'know) Good article but, little bits of excuse making slipping in there Jezza. BTW who WOULDN"T want Cooper in there team right now? He is not there for his tackling just like Alexander is not there to win lineouts. He only set up 4 tries BUT he missed some tackles. That logic would put Tom Carter at 10 for Wallabies. I like Tom but I think even he would pick Cooper.
mickh
Guest
"As for big names New Zealand has a population of 4.5 million against Australias 22 million it’s not a major surprise that Australia has far more big name players then NZ." - Do we? who would have thought given the parochial voice from across the ditch that we can faintly hear over our lattes on a quiet Sunday morning on Bondi beach . The only reason we get all puffed about playing the All Blacks is because they are number 1. Not because they from New Zealand. If Zimbabwe was Number 1 our focus would shift to them and we wouldn't care about you either. I never said anything about Kiwi's giving 2 hoots about what Aussies think. You made that one up.