It’s time to face the facts. Australia didn’t manage to lose their game against Ireland. They were simply beaten by a better team. And all the crying into Australian beer won’t change that simple fact.
The review of Australia’s performance following Saturday night’s match has been full of what went wrong for Australia, the lack of performance from players, the absence of clear thinking under pressure, the inability at scrum time to control matters, the absence of Pocock and Moore.
Much of the analysis points to deficits that were a one-off set of circumstances, an occasion when the otherwise mediocre, mad Irish pulled off an unlikely victory. It was a perfect storm – never to be repeated.
The underlying implication was that if Australia were to play Ireland again next week with the same line-ups, the result would be markedly different.
That would be a mistake.
Adam Freier had the most honest appraisal of the match – “Suck it up, we were outplayed and outsmarted” ran his headline. Except as you got into the detail of it, he focused largely on what the Wallabies did wrong, rather than acknowledge what Ireland did right and executed positively.
Reflecting on the outcome, criticism from a number of quarters is couched in classic avoidance language with reasons trotted out by commentators that are as predictable as much as they are limited.
First up – northern-hemisphere style conditions was set as the context for the game – as if it had never rained in New Zealand before Saturday night. Had the Wallabies watched how Ireland underperformed in the rain against USA?
Of course, the Irish gameplan was classic Northern-Hemisphere style negative rugby – as if Australia had never played against a side that sought to dominate at scrum and breakdown time and kicked penalties to win when defences were too good – on either side – to get anything else.
Ireland slowed the ball down and prevented Australia getting the ball to their backline and what they did get was slow and on the back foot. As if Australia had never encountered this context before when playing New Zealand or South Africa, let alone a Six Nations team.
If only we’d been allowed to play positive rugby goes the deluded thinking.
Then there’s talk of a ref who penalised them unfairly at scrum time, and that but for a couple of calls, Australia would and should have won it.
In reality, bar one brief period when Australia were hammering the Irish line, they failed to get past a defence that had conceded just three legitimate tries in the whole of the Six Nations championship.
Instead, despite all the wise warnings from some within the Wallaby camp, Ireland’s warm-up form was used as a metric to place them firmly into the ‘valiant also-ran’ category.
The mix-and-match Irish teams that played and lost against Scotland, France and England while conceding six tries set the expectation. The USA pool match was viewed equally risibly.
There were a lot of Australian players standing around after the match with a dazed look on their faces, particularly James Horwill, the recently-installed Wallaby captain. Next to him stood his predecessor, Rocky Elsom, whose face told a completely different story – one that began with “I told you so.”
Publicly, and no doubt privately on the training field and in the dressing room, Elsom had been warning about the dangers inherent in the Irish team.
Not just in their ability to fire up for the big occasion, but also because they have some world-class players, beyond the fading and injured Brian O’Driscoll. And – whisper it – some of those players were possibly better than their Wallaby counterparts.
Nowhere was this more evident than in Elsom’s own department of the backrow. Even before Pocock had suffered an injury prior to the game, Elsom was talking publicly about the calibre of the players he had played with and against in Ireland – and how underrated they were.
The absence of Pocock was no doubt keenly felt, yet the Wallabies knew that Ireland hadn’t been able to travel with their primary specialist opensider, David Wallace.
Unlike Australia, Ireland had another 7 specialist in their squad, Shane Jennings of Leinster, yet Kidney had selected a blindsider instead to fill the position – Sean O’Brien – the European Player of the Year in 2010/11.
What may not be recognised by non-Irish commentators and fans was that if David Wallace had been able to travel and play yesterday, O’Brien would likely have been on the bench, because Stephen Ferris is regarded as even better now that he’s recovered from injury.
Alongside both of them was Jamie Heaslip, the Irish Lion No 8, nominated as IRB Player of the Year in 2009, and with a Grand Slam and two Heineken Cups under his belt.
McCalman, Elsom and Samo/Palu just didn’t and don’t match-up – any day of the week.
In the second row, Horwill and Vickerman, were up against O’Connell and O’Callaghan. The most telling assessment of this comparison was to simply look at what Australia did for most of their lineouts yesterday.
First they avoided them whenever possible, and when they did, they invariably threw to the front. Polata-Nau just made it a lottery, and his erratic throwing was well known in advance.
The front row was Healy, Best, and Ross versus Kepu, Tatafu Polota-Nau and Alexander. It wasn’t exactly a state secret that Ireland’s scrum had improved – who could have missed it.
The emergence of Ross and Healy as a propping partnership for Leinster and Ireland had done wonders for their respective teams. Healy, in particular, had tormented pack play and was a choke-tackle specialist at test level.
Horwill was quoted as saying: “With the maul, Ireland used the philosophy of getting on the ball and using the laws to their advantage. When it’s called a maul, once it collapses the defensive team gets the feed in the scrum.”
If this quote is accurate, then the Wallaby captain failed to understand a key Irish tactic and the actual law in question. There was no driving maul. The Australian player was tackled, held up (‘choked’) by two Irish players and prevented from going to ground or moving forward.
As other Australian players gathered in the tackle, it became a maul, and as Ireland had successfully argued with the use of their tactic twelve months ago with the IRB referees panel, if the ball doesn’t emerge, then a scrum must be called and the put-in awarded to the defending team.
It doesn’t require the maul to collapse, just the passage of sufficient time and the lack of movement forward. Australia should have picked up on this as Irish players were consistently saying to the ref “It’s a maul” while the players were on their feet.
Behind the scrum, Australia should have had an advantage with their half-back combination. Except, as had been flagged well in advance, stop Genia, and you halt the whole Wallaby backline.
Genia simply hadn’t reckoned on how good the Irish backrow was until he found himself being picked up by Ferris, carried back 10 metres and dumped unceremoniously.
Cooper was transfixed. The level of indecision on his face when he got the ball and had Ferris and O’Brien tearing at him was palpable.
Out wide, the record-breaking partnership of O’Driscoll and Darcy was hardly troubled when in fact it was the one clear weak spot in the Irish defence. McCabe and Fainga’a are just not in the same class and barely troubled the injured O’Driscoll and out of form Darcy.
In O’Connor, Beale and Ashley-Cooper lay Australia’s best hopes of gaining advantage and getting across the try-line. Kearney, Bowe and Earls all had question marks about their form coming into the match.
Kearney ended up matching his counterpart, and Bowe and Earls were lively enough. Except for the fact that he was taking the place-kicks, you wondered if O’Connor was even on the pitch, he was so invisible, except for his chase down of Bowe.
This was no 10-man victory for a negative team. Ireland played a 15-man game with the same intensity, commitment and pace as Australia were used to playing. And Ireland were able to mix and match their attacking play to be more adventurous when it suited.
One moment in the second half captured that. About 60 minutes in, with Ireland in the lead, they were defending resolutely on their five-metre line on their put-in. The scrum held firm, and instead of the ball going back to O’Gara to fire to safety of touch, Heaslip picked and ran inside his own 22.
The ball fired left out the backline, and Australia first line of defence was caught napping, as Bowe streaked in open space down the wing and kicked ahead.
An unlucky ricochet off the covering Beale’s legs prevented a certain try. But Ireland had a lineout on the halfway line. A positive outcome to a piece of positive play. Just one of many in what was a fascinating game.
One which, in the end, Ireland won, for no other reason than because they were the better team.
Sage
Guest
My humblest apologies Poth. You are correct, it was the Crouchbacked one. I should have thought more of you although I did note my surprise. You did refer to VC recently as "a gentleman as always though...." Debatable.
Rugby Fan
Roar Guru
Ireland's defence coach Les Kiss is on the new Ruggamatrix podcast talking about the game. Djuro Sen suggests to him that the Wallabies were naive in their preparation. Kiss thinks they had an idea of what Ireland might do but didn't expect everything to click as well as it did. He also says he was convinced Ireland were going to win when he felt the mood in the changing room. It's worth a listen: http://www.ruggamatrix.com/podcast/2011/9/21/ruggamatrix-show-130-world-cup-special-ireland-strikes.html
johnny-boy
Guest
What comical rubbish PPW. Irish fans reckon their team are fantastic with amazing players having just beaten Australia, except they dont think their team are good enough to beat the All Blacks, even tho Australia just did. In other words Irish fans dont really think their team or players are that good, but they are going take the opportunity to crow like roosters because the Wallabies forgot to get out of bed. It is very transparent PPW. Different game styles blah blah blah it's only the score at the end that matters and you dont think your team can ever beat a team we just did. In other words you reckon Ireland will only ever be a second rate team even when it is playing a blinder. Pot Hale knows this too. He was too scared to answer. You say the All Black team has a better pack than the Wallabies. I'll bet there werent too many All Black forwards who would have agreed with you after the Suncorp game. Reality check for Ireland coming right up.
PeterPaddywhacked
Guest
Dear JB, ireland's pack deccimated australias last Saturday as the wallabes set pieces and rucking and mauling at all breakdowns was extremely poor and these areas of the game were very significant in the way thegame was played. For instance Cooper made a comment afterwards saying he had never heard of a choke tackle before which is this effective mauling technique being used by Ireland so maybe Australia hadn't there homework done enough before the game also. I think the difference is the all blacks have a superior pack compared to Australia's so this major part of ireland's game plan used to beat Australia may nothave such dramatic effects in attempting to beat NZ so that would be a much tougher game for Ireland. I think this logic your applying of australia beating NZ recently while Ireland have not regardless of Ireland having just beaten Australia is an immature outlook where it seems you cannot see all the factors at play. like I said Ireland had a better pack than Australia,while this type of pack orientated game against NZ would be more difficult for us as they are a more rounded team than Australia.Australia were allowed play a more open backs orientated game which NZ also like to play and in fairness Australias backs were impressive that day in the tri nations,but when NZ play Ireland and if Ireland choose to play a simular game type as we did against Australia the kiwis pack would be much better eqquipped to deal with this style of play because as I said NZ are amoretti rounded team. So different game styles are better suited to beating some teams like Ireland beating Australia while they may not be when playing other teams such as NZ who have already been beaten by Australia for instance. It's an unfair way to compare teams the way you are trying too.
Derm
Roar Guru
"I’m not suggesting you necessarily always struggle with objectivity when it comes to the WB’s but I was surprised with your comment on Saturday night regarding “hopelessness” at rugby plus a crack at cricket while you were at it and then punctuate with “no culture”. You did seem to be enjoying yourself immensely. Again, some good insights in the article and well done to Ireland, an inspiring performance." Sage - I'm surprised too - because I didn't make those comments. What the heck would I know about cricket? I think you're confusing me with Viscount C.
stillmatic1
Guest
who cares if they arent JB!! why do you have to bring up the abs in almost every post you make!! how does a game between ireland and australia involve the abs? you like to talk about kiwi arrogance and having the chips on their shoulders, well how do you explain your constant insistance on bringing kiwis or the abs into so many of your posts? the old inferiority complex maybe?! the brisbane broncos struggle against the melbourne storm but have great success over the NZ warriors, but the warriors play very well against the melbourne storm, so your point has no value, and i guess is just the typical sour grapes. did a kiwi steal your baby or something?
stillmatic1
Guest
totally different opposition, JB. its the typical aussie line, "well we beat so and so and the abs didnt so that by extension makes us better". WTF!! the wallabies have always had the game to beat the abs, doesnt mean everyone else does. the wallabies lost to samoa/scotland/ireland et al, but when do the abs lose to these teams?
peter
Guest
When did Australia ever put 50 points on a side like Ireland?
Stripes
Guest
Also i do understand the rule that it doesn't have to collapse for the defending team to earn the scrum.
Stripes
Guest
I disagree, because the maul did collapse when the Australian forwards came in to support their man and got the shove on. I don't think the Irish collapsed the maul with intent, but it didn't stay up, and from what I could see they made sure the ball could could not be gained back. I apologise for keeping on about it and i respect your view, and i am willing to accept i might be wrong if i have another look at it, its the just the way i saw it happen. I generally hate mauls, even attacking ones where the ball can be sent to the player at the back. How is that fair contest for the ball? At least allow it to be collapsed, otherwise its just glorified obstruction. But i digress. :)
AC
Guest
Bakkies/Chris T Chill out. Maybe I should have said 1000 pts to make the exaggeration obvious.
johnny-boy
Guest
Perhaps you could tell us PPW. Are Ireland good enough to beat the All Blacks now ?
PeterPaddywhacked
Guest
I liked this article because it was honest and accurate. Too many Australian commentators were making silly comments about the rain being beneficial to Ireland when the simple fact is Ireland like any other team do not like playing in wet conditions as Brian o driscoll has previously mentioned after other matches when this point was put to him,as he said Ireland have a backline that like to run with the ball aswell and not play just a ten man game. Ireland had the ability to adapt their game to the tactics that were needed on the day to beat Australia. And honestly, when I read statements like the ref was very unfair I just think it sounds like loosing ungraciously, or dare I say it... Sore loosers. The simple fact is that the Australian front row was not good enough and were pulling down the scrum giving away penalties, or at the breakdown when Ireland use as pots rightly said create this maul technique sometimes orelse are extremely effective at making a tackle rolling away and a different player (not the tackler) stays on their feet but turns the ball over. And to say the ref was finnicky as one journalist did is wrong as in the northern hemisphere the engage part of the scrum is even stricter at and just before this so the ref last Saturday was actually making a compromise between northern and southern hemiphere rules. Admittedly the losses of pocock and Moore were very significant but let's not forget that Ireland were also missing their first choice 7 and 2 also (Wallace and flannery). Usually a first choice backrow for Ireland would be 6-o'brien, 7-Wallace and 8-heaslip. Ireland's style of rugby was at times defensive but what a defence it was, it completely stoppeped Australia from attacking through their usually flashy backline. There were spells however when Ireland showed they can also play offensive rugby and I I think Australia were lucky to come out of that game not having lost by 30 points or so seeing as Ireland just came short of the try line after Tommy bowes intercept and dash for the line where his lack of game time lately showed in his fitness,sextons kicking at goal was poor when it's usually so good and also Murray had a try disallaowed. Finally,to say " typical northern hemiphere gloating" as somebody did in their post shows a certain iggnorance as yes England are often regarded like that however Ireland and the other teams have never been teams to gloat. Declan kidney will usually talk up the opposition before a game and after a game particularly after beating a team. I think Australia are a good team but as an Irish man I felt their was a certain arrogance that may have influenced them slightly from ex Aussie internationals for example in that they felt they would easily beat Ireland going by both teams form lately however this will teach them if this was the case that no team should ever be written off and to respect all opposition. This loss may actually benefit Australia for their future games.
Sage
Guest
Good article Pot. Many uncomfortable home truths here. I can understand why Nick would say as he has as your opening para states "Australia didn’t manage to lose their game against Ireland. They were simply beaten by a better team". Perhaps the addition of "on the night" may have clarified if you in fact weren't saying what Nick has read into it. Your article is well written if a little hazed by your relish in the circumstance. I'm not suggesting you necessarily always struggle with objectivity when it comes to the WB's but I was surprised with your comment on Saturday night regarding "hopelessness" at rugby plus a crack at cricket while you were at it and then punctuate with "no culture". You did seem to be enjoying yourself immensely. Again, some good insights in the article and well done to Ireland, an inspiring performance.
johnny-boy
Guest
You're avoiding the question PH and weakening your argument that Ireland are a good team. If they are so good they can beat the Wallabies comfortably with such great players and the Wallabies have just beaten the All Blacks then surely Ireland can beat the All Blacks. Otherwise your lauding of Ireland looks a little hollow or are you saying Ireland were just a bit lucky on the day ?
Derm
Roar Guru
Ireland won't ever beat New Zealand. It's one of the unwritten Laws of the Game. :)
Derm
Roar Guru
Yes, Stripes, that's what I pointed out in the article above: "As other Australian players gathered in the tackle, it became a maul, and as Ireland had successfully argued with the use of their tactic twelve months ago with the IRB referees panel, if the ball doesn’t emerge, then a scrum must be called and the put-in awarded to the defending team. It doesn’t require the maul to collapse, just the passage of sufficient time and the lack of movement forward. Australia should have picked up on this as Irish players were consistently saying to the ref “It’s a maul” while the players were on their feet." The Irish players had used the tactic during the 6 Nations and in the Heineken Cup.
Derm
Roar Guru
Spot on, RF. the problem I suspect given Horwill's comments after the game, was that he thought the same as Stripes - the maul had to collapse and then Ireland could prevent the ball coming out. It was a deliberate ploy - fashioned by Les Kiss - who got it from his time with the Tahs and/or regularly used by the Brumbies - hammer tackle I think it was called.
Rugby Fan
Roar Guru
It was a deliberate Irish tactic but I don't think your description is accurate. The only team trying to get the ball to the ground were the Wallabies as they tried to set up a ruck. Once the ref calls maul, neither team wants to risk trying to take it down. Collapsing a maul is a penalty offence. The Irish didn't need the maul to go down to win possession, they could just make sure the ball didn't come out. Trying to fall over doesn't really help with that since you lose control and risk freeing the ball with your defenders in a heap. The clearest example of what Ireland tried to do was when they kicked-off to start the second half. The Irish caught and held up the Australian catcher, while O'Connell bellowed "maul". Everyone stayed up, the maul was stationary for 5 seconds, and Ireland congratulated themselves on a ball won. Bryce Lawrence had to remind them that the laws are different when the ball is taken straight from a kick-off or drop out. Possession went to Australia.
jeremy
Guest
Clarification, once in this world cup, I would imagine that all Deans needs to do to remind the Wallabies to not be complacent is to show them the post-match photos from Ireland.