“Winners write the history” is an axiom. In war, losers disappear or lie low while they plot revenge. Losers don’t typically waste time helping the winners write the history – unless, of course, we are talking about Australian sports.
Australians, in particular, seem to see this ‘helping’ the winners write their version of history as both avocation and art form.
On Saturday, the Wallabies ran into the buzz-saw that is an on song All Blacks. The All Blacks had a point to prove – and did so rather well. Their local press, fans, staff, and the team are happy and largely positive with a little disingenuous modesty bedded in comments such as McCaw’s, “Yeah mate, it was good, but…”
Ever ready to assist in a bloody post-mortem, the Australia media and fans are immediately on the job with swords (and sharpened pens). Did the Wallabies even show? Was there even a match? Which elephant are the psychotic, drooling, blind men describing? What’s in those handbags they’re swinging?
To read the Australian edits of the New Zealand version of the game (did it even happen?), on the night the All Blacks made not one mistake or judgment error. Yes, not one mistake or judgment error – or so it would seem to readers who missed the match. By contrast, the Wallabies were utter rubbish.
The whole Wallabies effort was a continuum of mistakes – mistakes made in selection, strategy, attitude, etc, ad nauseam. Elsewhere at least one Roarer described the performance as sickening. Really?
The All Blacks won the match. The winning margin neither flattered nor did it represent a crushing blow to the Wallabies. If the All Blacks had played as they did last night against the Springboks, they’d have added another 50 points.
The rest of the world, they’d have been off to the shed after that impressively ‘sickening’ throat slitting that ended the Haka. Only the Wallabies were up to that game.
Don’t think so? Read the stats. Tick off a few critical boxes:
Possession: All Blacks 53 per cent; Wallabies 47 per cent.
Tries: All Blacks 3; Wallabies 2.
Scrums (won): All Blacks w-feed 7/7, a-feed 0; Wallabies w-feed 3/3, a-feed 0.
Lineouts (won): All Blacks on-throw 12/15, against 2; Wallabies on-throw 9/12, against 3.
Linebreaks: All Blacks 8 (created 2); Wallabies 6 (created 3).
Tackles (made/attempts-per cent): All Blacks 155/194 – 80 per cent; Wallabies 119/156 – 76 per cent.
Tackles (missed): All Blacks 22/194 – 11 per cent; Wallabies 19/156 – 12 per cent.
Tackles (ineffective): All Blacks 17/194 – 9 per cent; Wallabies 18/156 – 12 per cent.
Turnovers (general play): All Blacks 9; Wallabies 9.
Turnovers (ruck/maul): All Blacks 7; Wallabies 11.
Turnovers (lineout): All Blacks 3; Wallabies 2.
Turnovers (scrum): All Blacks 0; Wallabies 0.
Turnovers (restart): All Blacks 1; Wallabies 2.
The All Blacks are the best and the Wallabies aren’t – well, no, they are actually the worst, sickeningly bad, horrible, losers, hopeless… The only thing to do is clean out the lot and replace them all with players who never miss any tackles, always make good decisions, win all the scrums, line-outs, rucks, mauls and be perfect – just like the All Blacks.
All Blacks 30, Wallabies 14. The better team won. My/our (a few of you, I hope) Wallabies played 80 frenetic minutes against the very best.
They turned over the ball too much, didn’t make their penalty kicks, tactical kicks weren’t good, but they looked like they wanted to be there and made a fist of it, despite the monsters on their backs.
Yes, there was a fair amount of dismay evident on their faces on occasions when things well-intended went pear-shaped. However, dismay is a far cry from the despair and dejection on display 24 months ago.
We will win some games with them, but is it realistic to expect that we are ever going to dominate the All Blacks? No. Is it realistic to expect that we will beat them by playing their game? No. Was there something fundamentally wrong with the Wallabies on Saturday? No. Do they have to do it better to win? Absolutely.
So, why all of the angst and the mad rush to help the All Blacks write their history?
kiwirugbygirl
Roar Rookie
I only wish I could find a picture of Quade Coopers face for this thread, which he had throughout the duration of the game..would say it all for that game. Oh yea, im SO sure that if your stats were the reverse and the Wallabies had won that game, Wallabies fans would be declaring that the ABs had played pretty well and the Wallabies didn't really "wallap" the ABs at all... Please, 30 - 14 is a roasting.
Ant
Guest
Never make decisions on a racecourse! You always need to watch a game in the cold light of day as the passion of the game can affect your opinion, and thts why those post match beers are so infectiious. Wallabies started pretty well and put together some patient pieces of play pressing the all blacks line. In between these good patches in the first half they gifted tthe allbalcks opportunities where they quickly got in behind us and were unstoppable (coopers intercept and his mis hit up and under). On top of that Ali Williams took cooper out of the play down the blind that eventually led to the second try. There are a lot of ifs always (conners missed kicks) but the one area where I really think we had the advantage over the all blacks that went unrewarded was the line out. There were at least 5 throws that shoul shave been called not straight and these things can have a big impact on a team. The ABs were llucky in this regard and might not be so in other matches. It is disappointing that the touches mis these as that is why they are standing on the line. All in all the ABs were deserved winners but it's nit the end of the line for the wallabies, they made some good inroads with some inter passing between the forwards and I would like to see them head towards a more mature, kick to the corners game which they did twice in the first 5minutes and should have had some reward out of the line outs int hose positions.cooper needs to make his decisions earlier and on instinct and stick with them.
George Shirling
Roar Rookie
Let's get two things straight. 1. All history is interpretation. Good history gives insight to the problems of the present. 2. Statistics can easily be used to obscure obvious truths. Just as a tennis match can be won by the players loosing more points, rugby games can be won by the team scoring fewer tries or kicking less penalties, etc.
AdamS
Guest
I initially looked for the positives in this game, and pointed to the scrum, the posession, the attacking ball, _but_ ,I've watched this game 3 times now, I'm fairly convinced that the Wallabies had just as much ball in just as many places as the AB's wanted them to have. At what point does the coach, with his birds eye view and no doubt vastly more knowlegable grasp of what's going on send out instructions with the runners? Where they sent and ignored by the Cpt?
ozxile
Roar Pro
AdamS, should be the captain, but that is a different post...if the eds approve it.
ozxile
Roar Pro
Hoy, I posted the link to all the stats but the editors took it down. Can't help. However, I disagree about 'shellshocked' and 'blitzed' off the field. They held up in the line-outs and scrums and played with some purpose. The issue that concerns me most is their inability to retain the ball at breakdowns. They have to play their own game, but routinely losing the ball in contact is a blight on that game and totally inexcusable. It would not be a surprise to find out that opposition coaching focuses on tackling the ball when playing them knowing full well they are vulnerable. Maybe a few hours a week with a league coach focusing on ball retention would help them focus on ball retention instead of plowing through one more tackler. It could have made a big difference on Saturday - kickoffs included.
Hoy
Roar Guru
You read those stats, and it reads well. You actually watch the game and the stats flatter us terribly I think. The Wallabies looked shellshocked, and I just don't know why they were surprised the All Blacks played so well. What about kick offs? Where is that stat? Or general play kicks that the All Blacks regathered? The fact is, I think the Wallabies were blitzed off the field. I was really thinking that it was going to get to 50+ at some stages, and as I said, the stats flatter us, the actual game didn't.
AdamS
Guest
I think the major issue is that we played far below the potential we know the team has. The group of players on the park had the potential to win, and possibly win well. It was the tactical nous that was lacking. The stats were flattering, who is responsible for ensuring the tactics are up to scratch and adapting the game plan to meet the conditions you encounter on the field?
Mark
Guest
I agree with this thread. Going off the stats the Wallabies weren't that bad. The thing that makes us roarers think it is, is the abundance of kiwis ready to cull the Wallaby supporter. God forbid the Wallabies ever dominating rugby union, they might have to clean their pants and change sports! -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.