CAMPO: All Blacks thrill, while the rest fail to impress

I wouldn't give Macgueen total credit there as Eales, Gregan, Larkham, and basically all the greats from that era were in place in the national side before he coached it (he gets credit for moving Larkham to 1st 5...that took initiative). stillmissit, I respect your opinion and outlook but (and I may be wrong) I feel as though sometimes you tend to have a limited view as you tend to focus on more non-holistic problems. I know the ARU and the coaching structure isn't ideal but it also isn't a problem that has existed for only 10 years. It's more than meets the eye in relation to these two things. Please advise, may I ask...What would you do to "fix" the problem? (I'm not being augmentative, I genuinely want to hear your holistic opinion).

Chiefton, You seem to have a unique understanding having had the experience you've had and I suspect you may be right for the most part. Personally, I played for Avondale college in Auckland between 1998-2000 and we fought our way from the Auckland B grade up to the school boy Auckland A-grade when Kelston boy's high were the reigning secondary school boy world champions. In the year 2000 we were going to Fiji for a rugby trip when George Speight effected a coup. We had to change course on relatively short notice and went to Australia instead. Unfortunately all the games we had lined up in Australia fell through (5 in total) and the excuse was that they were too small to compete against our Island boys. The players weren't scared but their parents were afraid for the safety of their children (16-18 year olds). The first team pulled out half an hour before kick off and the rest caught wind of how big our team was and cancelled as soon as they heard. In the same year I was playing for the Suburbs rugby club and we entertained a South African youth team that was really tough and really gave it to us. They were tough competitors and were really physical and pretty much physically dominated our pack as they were physically bigger than our island boys. However we still won...just. I can't remember the score but it was close. I guess what I'm saying is that at the "grass-roots level" there are trends that tend to manifest themselves in higher levels. Having said that, even though at the grass-roots level Australian rugby isn't super strong it still has the capability of having era's of dominance, it's just that Australians tend to expect a long reign of dominance at senior level when they don't have the fundamental structures in place to make that happen in the lower level. They are great competitors but they need to afford themselves a little leeway here and there as the sport is not their main sport. If they could make rugby their predominant sport in the future they will get consistently better results and they will be a more consistent force more often. Every dog has it's day and Australia will have their day again. As a casual fan in Australia it must be frustrating but they have to show patience. Long live rugby!!!

Sheek - Don't know if you are still following this thread but I think Chiefton's points below are quite well made. While I didn't play in NZ I played with many Kiwis in Oz and in the UK and I have found similar differences between our styles. (I even tried to strap the boots on again last year - comeback lasted 14 mins 'til my knee remembered it needed a cruciate ligament). I have always found a general willingness by Australian Rugby players to throw the ball around and backup, I will admit I don't have playing experience prior to the late 80s so can't speak for some of the periods you refer to. Personally, I occasionally found the Kiwis in spite of a general willingness to play with a little width were sometimes a little too involved with the win at all costs mentality and I think this is probably a result of the seriousness with which the game is held by the larger populace, (this is not a sleight against NZ rugby - would be interested to hear other Kiwis opinions)!! I did however, find in all parts of the world a bloody good post-match culture that was shared by Rugby players of every nationality. Mediocre playing efforts of every style often became stuff of legend in the clubhouse..... My pathetic playing stint last year showed me that this culture is still strong at least at the amateur level and I don't despair for Oz Rugby in the same way you do, but I appreciate and back you in your comments to promote the game here. Have you thought about taking some of your thoughts beyond the ROAR?

As a NZder having played in NZ and in an Oz comp at the moment it would be easy to say NZ players look to the All Black template and the religion breeds an attacking mindest over the "one out" play that seems to prevail in Oz. However I have seen well constructed fast paced play here. A wealth of hunting and roving loosies and technically accurate front rowers. At grass roots they play what's in front of them and shift it wide with clinical efficiency. Whilst it's true that kiwi rugby kids replay in their minds a thousand times the heorics of attacking rugby (not league) play and this has a great influence. The big differences I spot are the scarecity of explosive players to change pace, direction or play dynamically even at the amateur level. In Australia a step, a fend, speed, strong technique to effect a turnover is often one play utilised by a player in a movement. In New Zealand I'd commonly encounter a single player bash the ball out of a defender, pick it up gass through a gap, swerve fend and deliver a wide pass to assist a try. Sometimes they were props. So I guess a long winded way to point at depth and skill but more so it's exposure to extraordinary feats. Rugby Australia has a wealth of smart natural athletes. What's lacking is the confidence to evolve players in that direction and therefore move the game forward. NZ coaches and administrators do that partly because it's part of the fabric but mostly because they believe if all players strive for that standard it raises the level of the group. The other key difference is in the teams game sense to read play with little verbal communication to identify key weaknesses in the opposition to attack. This was key to the attacking prominence of Polynesian teams in years past. Most would say size and strength were instead but support play that was a hallmark of most of those sides was not about either of those attributes instead it was about reading the play of your team mates and placing yourself in to capitalise on the breakdown of defences. The Queensland origin side do it exceptionally well and the Hurricanes are Super rugby's greatest exponents over its history. I see these differences between NZ and the Wallabies but evolving around your philosophy instead of following trends is key. In 2009 the ABs were outplayed by the Boks. The next year they sharpened up their high ball, kick chase and lineouts which allowed them to bring attack (the natural suit) back into the spotlight.

Kuruki - On that line regarding Quade did you see his last game for the Reds - he was clearly nursing his knee a bit and played a blinder because the defence just hung off him expecting something ridiculous. In some ways he may just need to pull out the impossible every now & then to keep the defence in two minds and oin the mean time concentrate on throwing those bullet like flat passes in front of the man that he can do so well and then well back-up (maybe watch some Mark Ella tapes). I would love to see him underplay his hand not for fear of stuffing up in fact for the very opposite.....I

the last aussie greats in the back line were Larkham and Mortlock. Find two players like that and Australia will be set.

Frank, if you honestly believe that Jones is a better coach than Gibson, Bennett or Macqueen, then you've drunk far too deeply of the cool-aid for there to be any saving you... Consider this: Bennett coached the Brisbane Broncos, the Maroons, Australia and most recently St George ALL to glory through long and torrid schedules (he coached the maroons and brisbane simultaneously). What is Jones' brief tenure at the wallabies compared to such a long and consistent record of glory? The true test of greatness is consistency over the long term, and by this measure Bennett truly deserves the respect of all - he has succeeded at all levels a number of times (hell, he even consulted for the Kiwis to help them defeat Australia in Rugby League!!! THAT is no mean feat). Now, compared to all that Jones is a flash in the pan and nothing more; a man who had a brief success with a team through some admittedly clever recruitments in the forwards and an already gifted back line. But what of his experience after the Wallabies? Jones did go into league after all to put his "genius" to use there. How did that work out exactly? I'll tell you - the man was an utter and complete FAILURE. In 1990, he switched was appointed coach of the Balmain Tigers rugby league football club, but resigned in July 1993 with these results: 1991 – 8 wins, 12th place; 1992 – 10 wins, 10th place; 1993 – five wins, 12th place. The next month he was appointed Director of Football for the South Sydney Rabbitohs rugby league football club, but his results didn't get any better... So please, explain to me how Jones - with his record of a brief flurry of wins and then abject failure - is a better coach than Wayne Bennett who has succeeded virtually everywhere, and then we can get on to an argument for why he'd be of any use to the wallabies now.

Let's not go to this level of vitriol. Thanks, Roar Mods.

Agree with Sheek and others about massive structural change required in OZ rugby. It's as if we are in a continuous state of crisis and we need to 'find' a 10 or find a centre at the start of every test season or tournament. If it were a factory that produced rugby players it would be an inefficient and unsuccessful one. in comparison to ABs and perhaps the Boks. NZ has the cool calm professional air of a hundred year old company that has developed not only high quality player/products but also efficient rugby development systems. They are assisted by the fact that the whole of NZ culture swims in a sea of rugby. But in contrast OZ rugby is all but invisible - even to the passionate, let alone to the swinging voters. I regularly read two rugby websites. I watch every game possible on fta or fox. My two sons play the game. I coach a team. But do you think could find a way to watch (or hear) the Brumbies/Wales game? Why is rugby such an underhyped event in this country?!!! Why is there not an ARU email to direct us to live streams or radio coverage of such a game? Why was there not a deal with fox to televise it? What are the ARU doing to make the game visible in this country? Clearly OZ rugby needs a bold master plan and JON does not have it. Or, like the game itself, he is keeping it a big secret.

And not tackle.

Can you imagine Jones coaching a backline with Gregan, Larkham, Horan, Herbert, Tune, Roff, and Burke... He'd let them loose! Instead of taking a controlled 23-3 win, those Wallabies would have destroyed Ireland under Jones.

I also take exception to you comparing Jones to Bennett, Gibson and Macqueen. Jones is greater than those blokes.

Jones deserves a ridiculous amount of credit. Before Jones the Wallabies didn't play with much shape. Jones had the entire game mapped out. The long kick-off would force the other side to kick, which they did. Jones wanted the line-out to be supreme so he converted Cutler into an awesome player. He was great at analyzing teams, like when he told Campese to exploit Eddie Butler before the Wales game, and did! It's well known he knew more about the opposition than any coach before him. Poidevin, Gould, Slack, Pilecki, etc all day he was the best coach they ever had. I got the same sense with Lynagh, although he never said it. No I don't want to post anymore, I want to talk about the 100 reasons why Alan Jones should be in the Hall of Fame in another post. Without Jones Australia would not have won the Grand Slam.

interesting point about 5/8 Jutsie, because he came over to the Force and did exactly the same thing insisting he was playing 10 when he was 12 in the wobblies, as a result the Force lost Brock James, James Hilgendorf and Scott Daruda.

You speak with much wisdom Sheek, there is nothing to fear but fear itself. When all is said and at the end of the day you can only control what is in your control and I'm sure the ebb and flow of life and rugby will flow towards a period of success again for the Wallabies. No1 sport or not the wallabies will have their day again, sooner or later they will make Australians proud if they weren't already (they should be). Long live Wallaby rugby forever and beyond.

He had a shocker in the RWC - No doubt. I have cut him some slack though for re-signing for 3 years with the reds. However, leading up to the world cup, we couldn't beat NZ without him - so to say he is not up to test standard is not entirely true. I suspect he will bounce back and become an invaluable pivot again.

I agree with this 100%. SBW is a perfect example of what improvements a player can make by simplifying their game. Quade would be a much better test player and easily the most dangerous Australia has to offer if he could play a more structured game and learn to pick his opportunities with vision rather then just throwing his entire repertoire at the opposition and hoping something comes off. Rugby is a sport where you need to make the small gains before you can expect to consistently reap the rewards. Quade is walking the glory road like SBW was prior to this season, always trying to find the shortcut, he needs to learn patience, he needs to mature as a player. Pick your opportunities when they appear and nail them, Carter is happy to play distributor for 30 minutes hardly breaking a sweat, what makes him great is the one time he chooses to pull out a high risk play, he nails it.

Looking from the outside in there seems to be no "quick fix". From my perspective (and I stress this is just mine) Australia and humans in general (psyche) love a winner. It's a catch 22. Union isn't the predominant sport in your country which dilutes the energy spent on "fixing the problem" i.e. winning consistently. At the same time it won't become the predominant sport unless they have a sustained consistent period of winning and winning in a fashion that captivates the public's imagination. Even though, as an All Black supporter, I would hate it if Australia had the dominance over us that we have had over them I fear this might be the only way that this catch 22 could be broken. But in order to break this trend at some point or another 1 generation of Wallabies has to rise above all else and achieve this even though history and politics are totally against them in order for them to do so. One day, this may happen and I'd like to say "when" and not "if" it does happen it must surely be one of the greatest stories in any sport that could ever occur taking into account the long history that Test rugby has been in existence. "When" Australia become synonymous with greatness this will surely be the day that rugby couldn't get any better for the fans.

'Missit, The older I get, the more I realise how stupid humanity really is. it's a wonder we don't collectively stuff up more often! Our politicians, bankers, economists, captains of industry, etc are supposed to be the wise men & women guiding us. But in reality, they don't have much more of a clue than the rest of us. It's all smoke & mirrors, show & tell. I think it was Mark Twain who posed the question as to whether those who lead us were as smart as they told us they were, or whether they were merely having us on. You can go to university & get a string of qualifications to your name. But if you went in with a closed mind, you'll come out with a closed mind all the same. I'm sorry to say the world is full of educated idiots! A little knowledge can sometimes be a dangerous thing. Anyway, a very wise old saying says it doesn't matter how many times you get knocked down, but how many times you get back up again. In other words, make a mistake, learn from it, & have another crack. Campo was a guy who was always willing to try something different. Sometimes it didn't work - like the 1989 pass behind the goal-line against the Lions which most everyone likes to bring up. Yet on the other hand he achieved so much more than most because of his willingness to dare to be different, to dare to go out on the edge. I don't mind players making mistakes. Especially if I can see they were trying to do something different. If they learn from it & have another crack, then they'll succeed, & fans will appreciate their derring-do. A wise coach looks at his players & their unique differences, & finds ways to get the best out of each individual player within the overall team framework. But I guess it's easier, & requires less brainwork, to get everyone just doing the same thing.....

Well Rugby Diehard, This is precisely what I've been basically saying on other threads - Australian rugby has to make the brand of rugby they play more "compelling". Which I guess, is merely another way of saying make the game more popular to the masses. Because the ARU doesn't have the war-chest of either the AFL or NRL, then the "salesmen" have to be our leading coaches & players. That is, the coaches & players of the Wallabies, Waratahs, Reds, Brumbies, Rebes & Force. They are in the best position to quickly change the fortunes of Australian rugby by playing a more compelling brand of rugby, & attracting more players to the game, & more fans through the turnstiles, etc. Regrettably, it seems, many of these coaches & players either don't understand, or don't care, about the significance of their position, & how quickly they could change things through their on-field behaviour.