It appears that the rugby union community in Australia are nervous, almost afraid to stand up and proclaim in an evangelical shout: “yes we can!”
Not only can the Wallabies challenge for the William Web Ellis trophy, they will be bringing it back, too.
Winning any tournament requires holding the right balance throughout the team and squad. There are three aspects that shall see the Wallabies through to the end; breakdown and set play strength combined with a well-measured back-line and multi-lateral strategy.
In regards to the breakdown and set play strength, this has been achieved over the last few months with the rigorous set-play training, the Australian forwards have endured during ‘scrum camps’ as well as the regular training camps.
Stephen Moore has emerged as a set play leader and while criticism has abated in regards to his scrummaging, it still resurfaces against the hookers’ line-out throw.
This is contestable, seeing as the second half of the Suncorp game saw him improve his throw immeasurably and the consistency in the lineout has grown throughout the Tri Nations.
What solidifies the forward strength is the intensity at the breakdown. David Pocock leads the way, boasting of impressive stamina and strength and this is reiterated by the aggression that the return of Vickerman has brought.
In terms of size, depth in the forwards has gifted the Wallabies with not only Radike Samo, but also the newly-appointed captain James Horwill as well as Scott Higginbotham and Nathan Sharpe.
The Wallaby involvement at the breakdown improved by 54% against the All Blacks and this was a lift in intensity that was already present the weekend before where they held an average commitment of 2.33 players per breakdown.
While we have not seen such aggression and commitment by an Australian forward pack for a decade, it would all be lost if the backline was not measured.
To be utterly frank, there are repetitive slanders and comments that have become incredibly onerous and this is the perfect platform upon which to respond. The Australian back line is a well oiled and complete package.
A second playmaker is not needed when the creativity of Quade Cooper is present, combined with the injection of Beale and O’Connors brilliance.
Their chemistry and unparalleled playmaking skills, allow the solidifying elements of the backline to find their place.
The consistency and near-faultless performances of players such as Digby Ioane, Pat McCabe and last weekend, Anthony Faingaa complement the sometimes erratic brilliance of Cooper and company.
Then of course, the full-stop to the poetic script, Will Genia.
Finally, the more precise element that shall see Horwill hoisting the World Cup, multi-lateral gameplay. The Wallabies have now shown that they have the ability to take a game to the place where it needs to be played.
A good kicking game, consistent and iron-clad defence as well as the most potent counter-attack currently on show, are nothing without the ability to alternate strategy and adapt to the change in playing conditions. By playing conditions, I refer to opposition, weather and of course, injuries or unforeseen events.
If you examine how the Australians presented themselves over the Tri Nations in its entirety, you see the ability to shift the game to where it needed to be played.
As the Australian team bid farewell Sydney yesterday, bound for New Zealand, they held a steadfast belief in themselves that they could win this World Cup.
I too stand by them and shall no longer lurk in the backgrounds, preparing to leap on some musical wagon as it speeds toward Auckland.
My allegiance and resolution stand firm; the question is, where do you sit?
Mike
Guest
And most important, take the fight to them at the breakdown. Challenge, counter-ruck, be in their face.
nige imrie
Guest
Nothing new in your article mate, in order to have a team that can go all the way, that team must have good set pieces and for that to happen there has to be the personnel, men with the right skill sets. Take the scrum, the tight head for the Wallaby team is suspect at the moment and that is an area that will be targeted, and that will happen when we play the Italians, they are a scrummaging team and they will disrupt good ball, creating an area where the ball will be slowed and in turn give the Italian backs time to disrupt our attack, pressure them into mistakes, this is a cauldron that creates pressure and there will be pressure. Let us hope that our backs are mature enough to stick to game plans instead of resorting to the little miracle kicks and forcing passes. Finally we have a huge pack of forwards that are aggressive, you have to be in this game, you have to create the situation where the opposition are not concentrating on their jobs but are wary, looking out for that big clean out or that huge tackle, you need hard men for that and it has taken Deans 4 years to finally work that one out. It is contagious and the rest of the boys will thrive on it and as a consequence we may create a cult of tough,smart rugby players who through sheer power and technique destroy teams. The lineout, why do we not use more short lineouts, this way we can pack the midfield with big runners and change the dynamics of the game. Penalties, why not use more planned moves with decoy runners and slight of hand instead of using a scrum that will not deliver us good ball, this way we determine the way we will use the ball. The clever team wins matches but the clever team concists of 22 clever players with high skill sets that can read the game and react accordingly, a good team should be able to play the game in any part of the field, captain and play makers should be able to communicate this to each other as the game progresses, it all comes down to what you do with posession, you should treasure the ball, if any of you recall the way the Brumbies use to play with Larkham and Gregan, kicking war rare they would recycle and move the ball back and forth, attacking the line and eventually breaking through, they were patient, they treasured the ball and through that they built pressure, as you build pressure you are denying the enemy of the ball, they have to work hard in defence,sapping them physically and consequently mentally as well. Through pressure come mistakes and risks are taken, case in point AB's v Wallabies in Sydney, denial of the ball caused Carlos to take risks resulting in their early exit. In so far as Yes we can, I will say it loudly, YES WE CAN, YES WE CAN!!!!!!!!!!!
Rugby Reg
Guest
would be great to see these young wallibies go all the way to the final. Then it is a coin toss but AB's are slightly in front, and yes they probably do 'deserve it' but worlds cups are won by 'intent!'. it will boil down to who has got the ticker on the day and we have seen two such examples of this ticker in the trinations. I have never seen the ab's play better than in Auckland and the WB's in Brissie. I they both played like that in the final WHAT A GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jerry
Guest
www.pickandgo.info has fed the information into the system and calculated historical rankings based on the same formula used currently. In 1995 the rankings were Aus 1, Eng 2, NZ 3, SA 4. England were ranked 7, Australia 2 in 2007.
Sean
Guest
Great piece and looking at the Wallabies form against the All Blacks in that last test, well let's hope it might just come true. I think though that we need to see some real consistency before we can say that the Australians are a real shot at the World Cup. Everyone seems to take every game as a great tide turning. Wallabies lose the first Bledisloe and it's our darkest hour, win that last one and we're world beaters. There seems a hyperbole and drama put on every game in Union that doesn't really exist in other sports. We need to see a fair few games with fairly good results before a great team tag is attached. The World Cup will be the test and as you mention "yes we can" but so can so many others.
Mike
Guest
Well yes, its great to proclaim in an evangelical shout: “yes we can!”. Its even better to shout out "Yes, we did!" Have to wait and see for that one.
Shaun Lambert
Guest
That would be as the irb rankings began just before rwc 2003. Sick article though mate
silegusta
Roar Rookie
you know mate, less assumptions would equate to more constructive criticism and less parched insults. If you bothered to read more of my work you might realise that some people have a specific writing style and this does not necessarily mean that they are attempting to "sound smart for the sake of it" nor am I a moron. I merely wished to convey my excitement at seeing a team emerge that will perform well, coupled with the world cup fervour it seemed appropriate to make bold statements. There is nothing wrong with saying the wallabies will win, I'm not reluctant to put myself out there, if you are looking for a more balanced and carefully worded article that does not voice personal opinion then there are plenty around.
sheek
Guest
Unfortunately, I am not blessed with prescient powers. Although I'm an Aussie, I'm also a bit of an idealist, & I reckon the ABs "deserve" this world cup. Firstly, for most often setting the bar for other countries to aspire to. How much poorer international rugby would be without the ABs. Secondly, because they have at least two of the greatest players in their position - McCaw & Carter - in history, plus another guy you would love to have beside you in the trenches - Thorn. The ABs playing the Wallabies would be the perfect final for me. I reckon some of the younger Wallas are suffering from that famous quote from the Top Gun movie - "their egos are trying to cash cheques their body can't deliver". Or similar. Not yet, anyway (for the Wallabies)..........
Brett McKay
Guest
Bill, have you listed to Brendan Cannon in commentary recently??
BIll
Guest
Agreed - I picked up on the fact this guy is a little off from his writing (comment above) I didn't even touch on the fact he is a full-wit by stating as fact the Wallabies will win. What a moron.
BIll
Guest
A really good read you say! It read to me like someone trying to sound smart for the sake of it. "Incredibly onerous" and "repetitive slander" are phrases that seemed a little out of place in a rugby column. Also what to make of the comment - "Not only can the Wallabies challenge for the William Web Ellis trophy..." Of course they are bloody well challenging for the cup - just like the 20 other teams are. This guy puts that out there like he's the only one onto the fact. As for the last sentence - what utter tripe - "My allegiance and resolution stand firm; the question is, where do you sit?" - seriously sounds like a cross between a soap box preacher and a WW1 recruiting slogan. Not sure which is worse, the writing or the person admiring it.
silegusta
Roar Rookie
In 2003 England was ranked number 1 going into the tournament and Australia moved in the last test before the world cup into 3rd place, Cannot really find the data for 1995 http://www.irb.com/rankings/archive/date=2003-10-13/histranking.html
silegusta
Roar Rookie
Essentially you are right. It is a game that involves two sides and it comes down to that 80 minutes not what is on paper. However one can make a statement such as "yes we will" and be filled with conviction... you can also be wrong... I may be wrong, but we will just have to wait and see.
silegusta
Roar Rookie
Agreed, I do have a slight bias towards Mccabe, but I think that his defensive record throughout the trinations is astounding, 97% successful tackle rate, which is equal first in the wallabies squad and comes down to two missed tackles in the series. His work rate is also excellent. It is all about pairing him with someone else who provides similar consistency and then leave the brilliance to los tres amigos!
the other Steve - and AB fan
Guest
There is a huge difference between saying "Yes We Can Win" to "Yes we WILL Win". The first statement is now credible for the Wallabies to say and for fans to believe. The second is full of hubris, is dangerous and is simply mis-guided (by anyone) at the start of the tournament. You can write up any team you like to be world beaters, and have the smartest plan at the kick-off, but the other team usually doesn't cooperate. "No plan survives contact with the enemy".
the other Steve - and AB fan
Guest
The All Blacks usually choke/lose in spectacular fashion. Its always an enthralling game to watch
Sage
Guest
I think "in spite of" is a bit harsh. I think A Fingers is about to surprise a few if he can cement a starting possy which it appears he has. A win will only come if they manage to stay focussed and play to their strengths as a team. Very cliche`d I know but a truism none the less. Same applies to the AB's. Although it's always anybodies cup, IF the above applies, I just can't see any other teams with the across the board overall package/qualities that 1 & 2 bring to the table. No offence intended to our Saffa neighbours as although you have a very fine team, I don't think they're in ascendency mode where as the aforementioned I believe are. The WB's just can't get ahead of themselves. I'm feeling (hoping) that Horwill may help in this area and they're talking that talk but we've heard that before haven't we. I'll be supporting my arse off but not sure about jumping on a musical wagon heading to Auckland just yet. When Big kev gets excited, then that'll do me
Paradox
Guest
Who said Moore has scrummaging problems? Are you making stuff up? He is the best set-piece hooker in Australia.
Snobby Deans
Guest
Rugby Diehard - a slight oversimplification, but I get where you're going with this. A couple of points; * The Wallabies, by virtue of their 2 - 1 Bledisloe Cup series win in 1986 in NZ - were the favourites for the first RWC. They got beaten by an inspired French team in the semi-finals (sound familiar to anyone). So they were, in fact, the first RWC chokers. To further rub salt into the wound, they lost to the Welsh for 3rd/4th - a second choke if you will. * The All Blacks are virtually the number 1 team in the world going into every world cup. Therefore, any time they don't win it's technically a choke as they lost to a lower-ranked team. I make this point as the choke taunt is levelled irrespective of whether the other team played outstanding or not (which was definitely the case in 1999 where the French played unbelieveably, less so in 2003 and 2007). It'd be interesting to know where England ranked in comparison to Australia in 1995, 2003 and 2007, as by that same definition, if the Wallabies were ranked ahead of the Poms, then technically they choked in those games.